In a case involving water damage to a house, the trial court erred in entering summary judgment against the plaintiff insureds on their claim that the insurer improperly denied their claims for additional costs of restoring a master bathroom which had incurred significant water damage and for replacing acoustical tile ceilings. The fact that plaintiff’s architect called the master bathroom work a remodel in his building permit application was not determinative of whether the work was necessitated by the water damage that the bathroom had sustained. The ceiling tile, arguably, had to be removed to determine whether there was hidden water damage and replacement in part would not have been possible because building code then required thicker tile than had originally been used. However, summary judgment was properly granted on plaintiffs’ bad faith claim since their own conduct in destroying removed sections of the bathroom before defendant could inspect it made it more difficult for defendant to determine whether repairs were covered. Also, the genuine dispute doctrine immunized the insurer from bad faith liability. Summary judgment was also properly granted on plaintiffs’ elder abuse claim because they had not shown that the insurer knowingly breached its contract, thereby depriving the elder of her property rights.
California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4 (Manella, J.); June 27, 2016 (partial publication); 2016 WL 3524086