In Home Indemnity Co. v. Leo L. Davis, Inc. (1978) 79 Cal. App. 3d 863, the Court of Appeal upheld a trial court determination that an insurer was obligated to provide coverage under an insurance policy, because a "care, custody, or control" exclusionary clause did not apply. In reaching its conclusions, the trial court made these general observations: "That the particular exclusionary clause before us has been the subject of much litigation is patent. Equally clear is the fact that in varying factual situations the precise exclusion has been held both ambiguous and unambiguous. The only consistency in the cases is the need for painstaking evaluation of the specific facts of each case, especially those that bear on the nature and extent of the insured's control. While it is true that the weight of authority favors applying the exclusion , the courts are not averse to holding it inapplicable where the control exercised by the insured--possessory or physical--is not exclusive and complete at the critical moment in question." ( Id. at pp. 871-872.)