NO COVERAGE FOR TREE REMOVAL

Homeowners	Intentional Act
Occurrence	I

Thomas Shourt's property shared a boundary line with the property of George and Pamela Bitner. On several occasions, Shourt crossed the boundary line and “deliberately” cut down and removed trees on the Bitner property. Shourt maintained that he cut down the trees for “fire clearance” and that the Bitners had given him permission to do so. The Bitners sued Shourt for trespass and for destroying 24 indigenous oak trees and undergrowth on their property. Shourt asked his homeowners insurer, Fire Insurance Exchange (FIE) to defend him. Shourt also told FIE that he deliberately cut down trees.

FIE denied coverage and refused to defend Shourt in the Bitner suit on the basis that “cutting and removing trees and shrubs does not meet the definition of an occurrence” since the insurer considered that to be an intentional and therefore ineligible act.

Shourt sued FIE and also claimed that FIE's claim investigation was inadequate and he sought punitive damages. FIE countered with a motion to deny punitive damages. The trial court granted FIE's motion and, at that point, FIE asked the court to recognize its denial was justified and that motion was also granted with Shourt appealing.

Shourt raised three issues on appeal. The California Court of Appeal for the Fifth District concluded that the trial court properly granted summary judgment because Shourt's claim fell outside the scope of the policy's insuring language. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed.

Shourt vs. Fire Insurance Exchange-Cal. App. 5 Dist.-February 18, 2014-2014 WL 628920