Maryam Ghukasian v. Aegis Security Insurance Company

• Published date: 21 July 2022
• Subject Matter: Insurance, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Insurance Laws and Products, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Professional Negligence
• Law Firm: Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
• Author: Mr Michael Velladao and Monica Kalunian

(Intentional Grading and Clearing of Property Mistakenly Believed to be Owned by Insured Did Not Constitute Accident Under Liability Policy)

(July 2022) - In Ghukasian v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., 78 Cal.App.5th 270 (May 5, 2022), the California Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Aegis Security Insurance Company ("Aegis") against insured Maryam Ghukasian ("Ghukasian") in finding that Aegis was not obligated to defend Ghukasian against a lawsuit filed by a neighboring property owner for damaging the owner's property due to the intentional grading and clearing of the property by Ghukasian. Ghukasian thought she owned the property that was cleared. However, the property was owned by the adjoining neighbor.

Ghukasian purchased a homeowner's policy from Aegis for the period of June 13, 2018 to June 13, 2019. In August 2018, she hired contractors to level land and clear trees on land she understood to be part of her property. Such land was not owned by Ghukasian. Rather, it was owned by Ghukasian's neighbors, Vrej and George Aintablian (the "neighbors"). In February 2019, the neighbors filed a complaint against Ghukasian alleging causes of action for negligence and trespass in connection with the clearing of their property by Ghukasian. Ghukasian tendered the defense of the neighbors' action to Aegis. Subsequently, Aegis denied such tender based primarily on the conclusion that the complaint did not allege facts involving a potential "occurrence" on the part of Ghukasian. Aegis advised that the clearing of the neighbors' property was intentional and therefore did not involve an "accident" as that term was used in the definition of "occurrence" in the Aegis policy. Subsequently, Ghukasian filed a complaint for breach of contract, declaratory relief, and bad faith against Aegis. In response, Aegis filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the neighbors' complaint did not allege facts implicating a potential "occurrence" as defined in the Aegis policy. The trial court agreed with Aegis and entered judgment against Ghukasian.

The Aegis policy provided the following coverage:

. . .

This policy provides coverage if a "suit is brought against Ghukasian for damages because of . . . property damage caused by an occurrence to which this coverage applies." An "occurrence" is defined in turn as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful...