Plaintiff sued insurer #1, claiming it owed a duty to defend him against a suit by a conservation land trust that he had violated the trust’s conservation easement over his land by various development activities he undertook on the property.  That suit resulted in a judgment for the insurer, affirmed on appeal, denying coverage on the ground that the suit resulted from the plaintiff’s intentional acts, not from a covered “accident.”  In this case, plaintiff sued insurer #2 on a different CGL policy which like the policy in the first action made coverage depend on the occurrence of an accident.  This decision holds that the affirmed judgment in the first action is issue preclusive with respect to whether the underlying suit arose from an accident, thus barring coverage by insurer #2 as well.  Relying on  Textron Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 733, the decision holds that an issue decided in a prior proceeding establishes issue preclusion even if some factual matters or legal theories that could have been presented with respect to that issue were not presented in the first action.