In Home Savings of America v. Continental Ins. Co. (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 835, the plaintiff bank held a deed of trust on a beachfront home in Corona Del Mar. When the loan went into default and the bank began foreclosure proceedings, the bank learned for the first time that the owners had conveyed title to the property to a third party, who had demolished the house to make way for new town homes. ( Home Savings, supra, 87 Cal. App. 4th at p. 839.) After acquiring the property at the foreclosure sale with a credit bid that left an out-of-pocket loss of more than $ 250,000, the bank submitted a claim under the homeowners policy on the property, which the insurer rejected for lack of a covered loss. ( id. at p. 840.) Division One of the Second Appellate District ultimately held that coverage existed under the policy because "the demolition of the residence was entirely fortuitous from the bank's point of view." ( Home Savings, supra, 87 Cal. App. 4th at p. 851.) The court also rejected the insurer's argument that the "inadequate renovation" exclusion precluded the bank's claim because the demolition was " 'only one element or step in the overall process of the renovation, development and remodeling of the property.' " ( id. at p. 852.) The court stated: "We conclude the faulty construction exclusion is insufficient to preclude Home Saving's recovery as mortgagee for a third party's intentional demolition of the insured residence. Just as several courts have concluded that simply excluding acts of conversion is insufficient to exclude the insured's intentional arson of a secured automobile, we find that simply excluding damages flowing from faulty construction is insufficient to exclude the loss caused by a third party's intentional demolition of a secured residence." ( id. at p. 854.) In Home Savings, the insured home was not simply renovated or remodeled; it was completely destroyed, including its foundation. When the bank foreclosed, all there was on the property was a new slab and possibly some rough plumbing. ( Home Savings, supra, 87 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 839-840.) The demolition was accomplished not by the named insured with the mortgagee's knowledge, but by a third party entirely without the bank's knowledge. It was reasonable for the Home Savings court to conclude that the total destruction of the insured home by a third party without the bank's knowledge was not a risk the bank should have reasonably understood was excluded from coverage under the "inadequate renovation" exclusion. (See id. at p. 854 "Home Savings did not assume the risk that a third party might intentionally destroy the insured property".)