California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Sterling Bldrs. V. United Natl. Ins., 79 Cal. App.4th 105, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 697 (Cal. App. 2000):
The seventh paragraph of the opinion consists of three sentences and contains the actual ruling. The first sentence is a topic sentence giving the court's conclusion, stating it was rejecting the insurer's argument: "We cannot accept [the insurer's] argument that an appreciable and tangible interference with the physical property itself is necessary to constitute an 'invasion of the right of private occupancy.'" (Town of Goshen v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co., supra, 424 A.2d at p. 824.)
The entire weight of the court's reasoning is carried by the second sentence of the seventh paragraph. But instead of giving a reason why it could not accept the insurer's argument, the court relies on its raw authority: "We are of the opinion that the allegations in the complaint would constitute the required invasion of the right of private occupancy.'" Town of Goshen v. Gange Mut. Ins. Co., supra, 424 A.2d at p. 824. That is the sum total of the court's "analysis." The third sentence merely reiterates the third party allegations, without any attempt to connect the language of the policy to those allegations. Nor do the final three paragraphs, which hold that a decision in favor of coverage was not precluded by the developer having based its action against the city on a federal civil rights statute (42 U.S.C. 1983), explain why a decision in favor of coverage was merited in the first place.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.