In Rogalski v. Nabers Cadillac (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 816, Rogalski was a wrongful termination action against Rogalski's former employers. The defendants were served and contacted their insurance broker, who forwarded the summons and complaint to their insurer. The insurer failed to respond to the complaint in a timely fashion. The plaintiff's counsel wrote to the defendants that he would enter defaults if responses were not filed within five days. The insurer contacted the plaintiff's counsel, indicating that it was still investigating coverage and asked for more time to file a response. The request was denied and the plaintiff indicated when a default would be obtained if no response was filed. The insurer told the defendants that it was denying coverage and a default was entered. The defendants immediately obtained counsel but were unsuccessful in having the default set aside. (Id. at pp. 818-819.) The court noted that, in the context of an attorney's negligence, "courts have long afforded relief to litigants whose attorney's neglect amounts to 'positive misconduct' toward the client." (Rogalski v. Nabers Cadillac, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at p. 821.) In the case before it, the insurer led defendants to believe it was representing their interests then abruptly abandoned them without taking any steps to protect their rights. (Ibid.) In short, the court reversed a default judgment on the ground the defendant reasonably believed his insurer would file an answer or other responsive pleading on his behalf in a timely manner. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to vacate the judgment on the ground the failure to respond was not the result of the insurer's mistake or inexcusable neglect, but of its deliberate decision. The Court of Appeal explained: "Golden Eagle may well have acted deliberately, indeed reprehensively, in failing to either file a responsive pleading or give Nabers adequate warning that it would not do so. That does not, however, justify denying relief to this defendant, who was so obviously caught unaware by his insurer's actions. In ruling the trial court failed to consider Naber's excusable neglect in filing a response." (Id. at p. 820)