Sigelman v. State Farm Gen. Ins. CA2/1

Filed 10/30/13 Sigelman v. State Farm Gen. Ins. CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

PAUL SIGELMAN, B241981 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC442609)

v.

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Abraham Khan, Judge. Affirmed.

Perlman Law and Deborah Perlman for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Sedgwick LLP, Maria Louise Cousineau, Douglas J. Collodel and Dina R. Richman for Defendant and Respondent.

Paul Sigelman intentionally had a contractor remove the shower and bathtub from the bathroom in his condominium. He did so on the basis of incorrect information from his homeowners’ association, which had mistakenly concluded that Sigelman’s bathroom was the source of a water leak that had caused mold growth in a neighboring condominium. Sigelman made a claim for the damage (namely, the removal of his shower and bathtub) under his condominium owner’s insurance policy with State Farm General Insurance Co. (State Farm). State Farm denied the claim, and Sigelman filed suit against both State Farm and the homeowner’s association. State Farm prevailed on summary judgment, arguing that the damage was not an accidental direct physical loss and consequently was not covered. Sigelman appeals, and we affirm. BACKGROUND State Farm issued a condominium unit owner’s policy to Sigelman for a condominium he owns in a high-rise complex. The policy had effective dates of January 27, 2010 to January 27, 2011. On May 24, 2010, the Century Towers Association (Association), which is the homeowners’ association for the building, sent Sigelman an email. The email informed Sigelman that earlier that day something that appeared to be mold was discovered in a closet in Sigelman’s neighbor’s condominium. The Association’s engineers investigated and “found that the caulking on [Sigelman’s] shower is defective” and that water “appears to go through” the wall of Sigelman’s bathroom and into the neighbor’s closet. The Association advised Sigelman that it was retaining a contractor (“National Econ”) to test the drywall, in order to “mitigate damages” resulting from the apparent mold. The Association also recommended that Sigelman “contact a plumber to investigate the leak further, from [Sigelman’s] side of the wall, so it can be stopped.” Sigelman received a second email from the Association later that day, informing him that the wall between his unit and his neighbor’s had tested “high for mold spores.” The Association further stated that the next day it would “have the walls abated” in the neighbor’s unit in order “to check for the source of the leak, which contributed to the mold. Until we open the