The Turners owned a home as well as a property at another location which they intended to make available for rent. The property was covered by a rental dwelling policy. One evening the police were called to their residence in response to a domestic dispute. The Turners were involved in an intense argument over establishing the rental terms for their other property. During the course of the argument, Mrs. Turner was, at separates times, disarmed and later restrained by Mr. Turner when she threatened him first with a gun and later with a golf club.
After the police arrived, Mrs. Turner was taken into custody. After spending time in jail, Mrs. Turner (and later Mr. Turner) accused a deputy of performing a strip search. The deputy later filed a lawsuit against the couple for defamation of character. The Turners reported the suit to the insurer of their rental property, State Farm. The company denied the claim and demurred* the issue. The lower court accepted the demurrer. The Turners, having paid nearly $13,000 in attorney fees and $15,000 in a settlement to the deputy, appealed the demurrer.
On appeal the Turners claimed the lower court was wrong to uphold the demurrer since, in the plaintiffs’ opinion, the insurer had an obligation to provide a defense. The higher court examined two relevant cases as well as considered the Turners’ allegation. The court determined that the other case details were distinguishable because they involved a causal relationship that triggered a coverage obligation. The defamation charge, based on the claim that both Turners falsely accused a deputy of performing an inappropriate search. The facts were that the accusations were remote to their argument over their rental property. Because of this separation, the higher court agreed with the lower court that there was no causal relationship between the rental property policy and the comments which created the lawsuit. Therefore, no obligation existed on the insurer to respond to the claim. The lower court decision was affirmed in favor of the insurer.
William Turner et. al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Defendant-Respondent. CalCtApp. No. G026162 Filed September 27,2001. 2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 768 Affirmed. CCH Fire and Casualty Cases Paragraph 7379
* in essence, the insurer acknowledged the loss while considering it as insufficient to create an obligation to respond to the loss/suit).