In Miller v. Western General Agency, Inc. (1996) 41 Cal. App. 4th 1144, the claimant sued the insured Millers in connection with the sale of their home. (Id. at p. 1147.) The claimant alleged that the Millers had failed to disclose the existence of defective plumbing that had subsequently failed and caused "damage to real and personal property." (Id. at p. 1148.) The Millers asked their liability insurer to defend the claimant's lawsuit but the insurer refused. Ruling that there was no duty to defend, we held in Miller that "the basis for . . . complaint is not the alleged defective plumbing, although it might otherwise have been a part of [the claimant's] damages. What they are suing for is the tortious fraudulent conduct of the Millers which simply does not fall within the coverage of Central-National's policy." (Miller v. Western General Agency, Inc., supra, 41 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1151.) In short, the insured was sued for failing to disclose defective plumbing in selling a home. The Court of Appeal held the insurer had no duty to defend because the insured was being sued for misrepresentation, not for having defective plumbing, and the nondisclosure was neither an accident so as to constitute an "occurrence" within the policy, nor was the economic loss to the buyer "property damage" within the policy. (Id. at pp. 1149-1151.)