Pimentel v. Pacific Specialty Ins.
After Allan Pimentel and Michael Mathias entered into a stipulated judgment deeming Mathias liable for an injury to Pimentel and assessing over $500,000 in damages, Pimentel and Mathias each sued Mathias's insurer, Pacific Specialty Insurance Company (PSIC), seeking payment of the judgment and alleging that PSIC, in bad faith, refused to defend and indemnify Mathias for Pimentel's claim. All parties moved for summary judgment/adjudication, and the trial court, after granting Mathias's motion for consolidation, denied Mathias's and Pimentel's motions and granted PSIC's motion. In this appeal Mathias and Pimentel challenge the trial court rulings, which were based on the ground that the insurance coverage sought by Mathias and Pimentel was for a loss resulting from a battery committed by the insured, Mathias, and was consequently a "loss caused by a wilful act" for which coverage was precluded under Insurance Code section 533. As discussed below, we agree with the trial court's ruling. The undisputed facts established that the loss at issue was caused by Mathias's intentional, wrongful and inherently harmful act, and thus section 533 precluded any potential for insurance coverage as a matter of law. Consequently, PSIC had no obligation to defend or indemnify Mathias, and summary judgment was proper.
Comments on Pimentel v. Pacific Specialty Ins.