Yu v. Century Surety CA4/3

Filed 2/27/14 Yu v. Century Surety CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

BANN-SHIANG LIZA YU,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G048427

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2009-00255065)

CENTURY SURETY COMPANY, OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kim Garlin Dunning, Judge. Affirmed. Mohammed K. Ghods, William A. Stahr and Ruben Escobedo III for Palintiff and Appellant. Woolls & Peer, John E. Peer and H. Douglas Galt for Defendant and Respondent.

* * *

Plaintiff Bann-Shiang Liza Yu appeals from the summary judgment entered in favor of defendant Century Surety Company (Century) in an insurance bad faith action. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Yu is the owner/developer of the Candlewood Suites Hotel (the hotel) in Anaheim. Yu retained ATMI Design Build (ATMI) as the general contractor for the construction of the hotel. In February 2003, ATMI entered into a subcontract with Century’s insured, H2O Technologies (H2O), to build the hotel’s spa pool for $27,417. H2O completed its work on the spa pool in March 2004. At that time, H2O was covered by a general commercial liability policy (the policy) issued by Century. The policy was effective from June 6, 2003 to June 6, 2004. Essentially, the policy provided that it covered bodily injury and property damage occurring during the policy period, for which a claim is made during the policy period and reported to Century during the policy period or within the applicable “Extended Reporting Period.” (The “reporting” requirement, at the heart of this appeal, is set forth in Section I 1.b.(4) of the policy.) Because H2O did not renew the Century policy, a 60-day extended reporting period applied, allowing claims to be reported through August 6, 2004. In October 2004, Yu sued ATMI and approximately 35 subcontractors for construction defects (the construction action). The complaint did not name H2O and did not mention any defect with respect to the spa pool. In July 2006, H2O was named as a defendant in a cross-complaint filed in the construction action. On April 18, 2007, H2O gave notice of the claim to Century and tendered its defense. Century denied H2O’s claim, stating there was no coverage under the policy because, “[a]lthough [H2O’s] work was completed within the policy [period], [H2O] was NOT notified of the claim within the policy period; also, Century was NOT notified within the 60-day Extended Reporting Period.”