In Tinseltown Video, Inc. v. Transportation Ins. Co. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 184, the plaintiffs in the underlying action claimed to have been 50 percent owners of video rental stores and alleged that the other partners wrongfully transferred the stores to another party without the plaintiff's consent, constituting a variety of torts, including trespass. (Tinseltown Video, supra, at pp. 189-190.) The insured defendants, whose policy terms with respect to wrongful eviction also were identical to the language in the policy here, claimed that the existence of the trespass claim and the factual allegation that the plaintiffs were denied "use and enjoyment" of the stores was sufficient to invoke a duty to defend. ( Id. at pp. 189-193.) The court disagreed, noting that although language of trespass was used in the complaint, in essence the plaintiffs alleged that they were wrongfully denied their possessory interest in the partnership assets, not that they held any possessory interest in the video stores. ( Id. at p. 200.) Because there was no asserted interest in real property--only a personal property interest in the partnership--there could be no wrongful eviction. ( Id. at pp. 200-201.) No duty to defend therefore arose under the policy language. ( Id. at pp. 202-203.)