Vincent v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London CA2/6

Filed 12/19/22 Vincent v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

MARTHA VINCENT et al., 2d Civ. No. B316786 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2012- Plaintiffs and Appellants, 00421417-CU-BC-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S LONDON,

Defendant and Respondent.

Tenants were evicted from landlord’s premises. Landlord refused to allow them to retrieve their personal property. Tenants sued landlord, alleging conversion of and negligent damage to their personal property. Landlord tendered the lawsuit to the insurer, Underwriters at Lloyd’s London (Lloyd’s). The insurer denied coverage. Tenants obtained a judgment against landlord for conversion and negligence. Landlord sued the insurer for breach of contract and bad faith. The trial court granted the insurer summary judgment on the grounds that the

conversion occurred prior to the policy period and was not an occurrence covered by the policy. We agree with the trial court and affirm the summary judgment in all respects. FACTS Martha Vincent leased her single family residence in Westlake Village to Dawn Christie for two years beginning January 1, 2009. Christie and her husband intended to operate a spa business, Togetherness Productions, LLC on the premises.1 Because the premises was used as a business, Vincent did not have liability insurance for the premises. Christie soon began falling behind on her rent. As a result, Vincent brought an unlawful detainer action that resulted in a judgment of possession and damages for unpaid rent in the amount of $115,708. Vincent obtained the judgment on April 10, 2010, but Christie remained in possession until July 27, 2010, when the sheriff executed a “lockout” and evicted her. During the eviction Christie was allowed to take only a few personal items with her. Christie requested that she be allowed to return to the residence to remove her personal property. Vincent’s husband, who was managing the property, refused. The bulk of her personal property, including exercise and spa equipment, remained on the premises. On July 28, 2010, the day after the eviction, Christie spoke with Vincent’s attorney about the return of her personal property. Vincent’s attorney suggested Christie call back in two days “in order to try and hash out the details of how to return [her] personal property subject to [Vincent’s] claim that any