Pieper v. Commercial Underwriters Ins. Co

In Pieper v. Commercial Underwriters Ins. Co. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1008, the homeowner sustained damage from an arson fire. The insurance policy contained an exclusion for damage caused by a brush fire. ( Id. at p. 1012.) In rejecting application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine, the court noted: "As Commercial Underwriters Ins. Co. correctly points out, 'under the single causation analysis, it is irrelevant what caused the fire. The crucial and undisputed fact is that the LOSS was caused by a brush fire sweeping across seven miles of brush land and destroying everything contained thereon before causing the LOSS. The facts of the LOSS are exactly why the POLICY specifically excluded LOSS caused by brush fires and it is consistent with the reasonable expectations of the parties.' We also agree with Commercial Underwriters Ins. Co. that the facts of this case are directly on point with Finn v. Continental Ins. Co., 218 Cal. App. 3d 69 in that, 'just as a leak cannot occur without a break in a pipes , a brush fire cannot occur without a source of ignition.' There are certain elements required to create a fire -- oxygen, combustible material and a source of ignition. By labeling this fire as an 'arson fire' the Piepers have artificially divided these essential elements into separate perils, which thereby flies in the face of common sense and the mutual intention of the parties." (Id. at p. 1020.) The Court found an all risk policy unambiguously excluded loss due to "'brush fire.'" (Id. at pp. 1011, 1016-1018.) "'Just as a leak cannot occur without a break in a pipes , a brush fire cannot occur without a source of ignition.' There are certain elements required to create a fire--oxygen, combustible material and a source of ignition. By labeling this fire as an 'arson fire' the insured has artificially divided these essential elements into separate perils, which thereby flies in the face of common sense and the mutual intention of the parties." (Id. at p. 1020.) "'If every possible characterization of an action or event were counted an additional peril, the exclusions in all-risk insurance contracts would be largely meaningless.' " (Id. at p. 1021.)