Palub v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co

In Palub v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. (2001) 92 Cal. App. 4th 645, the Court held the weather conditions clause was a coverage provision: "As we read the clause, the policy covers loss caused by weather conditions and restricts coverage only where an excluded cause contributes to the loss. The fact that the insurer which drafted the clause chose to couch it as an exclusion does not make it one." (Palub, supra, 92 Cal. App. 4th at p. 651; id. at p. 650) "On a careful reading of the weather conditions clause, it is apparent that despite the title of the section, weather conditions are not an excluded cause of loss".) As a result, it concluded "Hartford has attempted to exclude coverage for losses for which the efficient proximate cause is a covered peril, weather conditions" and declined to enforce the weather conditions provision. (Id. at p. 651.)