United States v. Sanders
Decision Date | 03 March 1964 |
Citation | 225 Cal.App.2d 275,37 Cal.Rptr. 303 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Joseph SAUER and Jenine Sauer, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 27336. |
Jerome W. Shepard, Los Angeles, for appellants.
Bolton, Groff & Dunne and Gene E. Groff, Los Angeles, for respondents.
Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant insurance company following a trial. Plaintiffs by their complaint herein seek declaratory relief based upon an insurance policy issued by defendant on May 26, 1959, denominated 'Homeowners Policy' covering their residential premises.
They allege that about April 10, 1961, while the policy was in effect, their residence sustained substantial damage to the foundation, walls, floors and other portions of the building in that the foundation cracked and settled, the walls and ceilings cracked, the floors and doors warped and there was a general settling, twisting and warping of the house. That about May 1, 1961, they discovered that one of the pressure water pipes underneath the dwelling but above ground had accidentally sprung a leak during the policy period, and had been discharging water into the ground for some time, causing an area of earth beneath the house to become soaked and muddy which, in turn, caused the foundation piers of the residence to settle, resulting in the described twisting, warping and cracking. That immediately upon discovery they notified defendant and furnished proof of loss and performed all conditions of the policy required of them. That on May 17, 1961, defendant advised plaintiffs in writing of rejection of their claim on the ground that the damage they had sustained was not covered by the said Homeowners Policy.
Plaintiffs further allege that said policy does provide insurance coverage for the damage so sustained by them in that, among other things, it provides:
Defendant, while admitting that plaintiffs' building settled and that the damages alleged resulted from such settling, denies that its policy of insurance covers such damage. By way of affirmative defenses, defendant alleges three claimed exclusionary clauses in said policy which it contends excludes it from liability to plaintiffs herein. They are first: * * *.' Second: Third:
The trial court found the allegations of the complaint generally true and that during the policy period an accidental discharge or leakage of water from a part of the plumbing system of said house occurred, spraying a substantial quantity of water upon the ground beneath the house, causing a portion of the earth to sink and some foundation piers to settle from beams beneath a part of such dwelling. That plaintiffs' house was extensively damaged as a result of such settling and that such damage was contributed to and aggravated by the sinking of a portion of the earth beneath the building due to the water which escaped from a portion of its plumbing system.
As conclusions of law the court found, in effect, that while the claimed exclusionary clauses numbered '3.' and '5.' as set out in the defendant's second and third affirmative defenses did not apply to the facts and circumstances here shown, the terms of clause '4.' as alleged in the first defense expressly excludes the loss suffered by plaintiffs. That while the loss claimed was not caused by or resulting from the settling of the ground, such loss was contributed to and aggravated by the earth sinking following the water leak.
Plaintiffs argue that the severe damage occurring to their home in the short space of several months in 1961, after the policy had been in effect some two years, demonstrates it was not the result of 'earth movement,' 'earth sinking,' or 'settling of foundations' or of 'water below the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Garvey v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.
...the moving cause of the loss. (E.g., Sabella v. Wisler, supra, 59 Cal.2d 21, 27 Cal.Rptr. 689, 377 P.2d 889; Sauer v. General Ins. Co. (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 275, 37 Cal.Rptr. 303; Strubble v. United Services Auto. Assn. (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 498, 110 Cal.Rptr. 828.) Finally, in the third cat......
-
Chadwick v. Fire Ins. Exchange
...of sewer and inadequate compaction of fill (covered perils), both causing settling (excluded peril) ]; Sauer v. General Ins. Co. (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 275, 278, 37 Cal.Rptr. 303 [leakage of water from plumbing system (covered) and sinking of earth (excluded) ]; Gillis v. Sun Ins. Office, Lt......
-
Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
...damage; wind, causing gangway to fall on and sink a dock, was deemed efficient proximate cause of loss]; Sauer v. General Ins. Co. (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 275, 278-279, 37 Cal.Rptr. 303 [coverage afforded when water leaking from plumbing system (covered peril) was the efficient proximate caus......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Partridge
...'in motion.' (See also Gillis v. Sun Ins. Office, Ltd. (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 408, 419--420, 47 Cal.Rptr. 868; Sauer v. General Ins. Co. (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 275, 37 Cal.Rptr. 303.)In the instance case, however, the 'efficient cause' language is not very helpful, for here both causes were i......
-
CHAPTER 4
...wind, causing gangway to fall on and sink a dock, was deemed efficient proximate cause of loss]; Sauer v. General Ins. Co.(1964) 225 Cal. App. 2d 275, 278-279 [37 Cal. Rptr. 303] [coverage afforded when water leaking from plumbing system (covered peril) was the efficient proximate cause of ......
-
APPENDIX 9 FULL TEXT OF GARVEY V. STATE FARM
...wind, causing gangway to fall on and sink a dock, was deemed efficient proximate cause of loss]; Sauer v. General Ins. Co. (1964) 225 Cal. App. 2d 275, 278-279 [37 Cal. Rptr. 303] [coverage afforded when water leaking from plumbing system (covered peril) was the efficient proximate cause of......
-
Landslides in California: What Are Your Insurance Options When You Feel the Earth Move?
...of vegetation; rain falls on the stripped hillside and results in earth movement (a non-covered cause)); Sauer v. Gen. Ins. Co., 225 Cal.App.2d 275 (1964) (plumbing pipe bursts, releasing a sudden discharge of water (a covered cause); the infusion of water results in earth movement (a non-c......
-
Landslides in California: What Are Your Insurance Options When You Feel the Earth Move?
...of vegetation; rain falls on the stripped hillside and results in earth movement (a non-covered cause)); Sauer v. Gen. Ins. Co., 225 Cal.App.2d 275 (1964) (plumbing pipe bursts, releasing a sudden discharge of water (a covered cause); the infusion of water results in earth movement (a non-c......