Summer 2019 Defense Comment 31 the Moghadams $1,176,633 against NMH, and the arbitrator’s award was confirmed as a judgment. NMH’s excess liability insurer, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ISCOP), fully indemnified NMH for that judgment. While the arbitration was pending, NMH sued Camarillo for contractual indemnity. Camarillo sought defense and indemnity from its commercial general liability insurer, American Safety Indemnity Company (ASIC).  ASIC declined to defend or indemnify Camarillo against NMH’s lawsuit. NMH eventually obtained a default judgment against Camarillo.  Pursuant to Insurance Code section 11580, ICSOP (as subrogee of NMH) then brought ajudgmentcreditoractionagainstASIC(as liability insurer of Camarillo) in an effort to collect the $1,532,973 default judgment that NMH had obtained against Camarillo. The trial judge entered summary judgment in favor of ICSOP.  ASIC appealed, contending: 1. that the default judgment was void because the underlying complaint failed to specify the amount of damages sought; 2. the underlying judgment was an award for economic loss rather than property damage and was therefore not recoverable under Insurance Code section 11580; and 3. ICSOP did not prove the default was covered under any of ASIC’s policies.  The Court of Appeal affirmed. The court distinguished Yu v. Liberty Mutual (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 1033, finding that the incorporation by reference of the underlying claimants’ damage claim and inclusion of specific allegations that claim involved damages to the claimants’ property caused by the defendants for which they had an obligation to defend and indemnify NMH was sufficient notice of the amount of damages sought. The court further determined that the arbitrator’s award based upon diminution in value did notmeanthatitwasnotaclaimbasedupon property damage since the diminution was the measure of damages awarded for the physical damage to property. The court also determined the record established that physical injury to the homeowners’ property occurred in ASIC’s sixth policy year. Pursuant to Insurance Code section 11580, ICSOP was entitled to recover the full $1,532,973 from ASIC.  LANDOWNER LIABILITY Ashley N. Meyers | Chair The Landowner Liability Sub-Law Committee is asking members to email topics of interest to members, webinar ideas, and any other suggestions to Ashley Meyers at ameyers@clappmoroney.com. We are planning a webinar that will focus on the Ins and Outs of Rent Control Ordinances throughout the Bay Area and Northern California. If you are interested in participating in this presentation, please e-mail ameyers@clappmoroney.com. Legislative Update: In June 2018, California’s Fifth District Court of Appeal interpreted Government Code section 53069.4 to require the County of Fresno to provide an illegal cannabis cultivator a reasonable time to abate cultivation before imposing a fine. See Thao v. County of Fresno (2018) Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, Case Nos. F072276, F073035 (unpublished.) Possibly in response to this unpublished decision, the State Legislature passed AB 2164, which amends Government Code section 53069.4 and allows local governments to eliminate the “reasonable time period” to correct a code violation in cases of cannabis cultivation. This new law will have significant impacts on unwitting landlords who may or may not know that cannabis cultivation is occurring at their property. Under the new law, a landlord has a reasonabletimetocorrecttheviolationand avoid fines if: (1) the party in possession of the property is a tenant; (2) the lease agreement prohibits the cultivation of cannabis; and (3) the owner/landlord did not have knowledge of the illegal cultivation. The new regulatory system surrounding cannabis cultivation is complicated and it can be difficult for landlords to determine whether cannabis activity is authorized in their jurisdiction or whether they are permitted to prohibit cannabis activity at their property. Clients will be looking to counsel more and more to avoid high statutory penalties and fines. PUBLIC ENTITY James J. Arendt | Co-Chair Patrick Deedon | Co-Chair We need you! We are looking for motivated members interested in public entity defense to join the Public Entity Sub-Law Committee team. With your assistance and direct participation, we can make a significant impact in the defense of our clients and in the education of membership throughout this organization. On March 29, 2019, the First Appellate District considered one of the new laws allowing greater access by the public to peace officer records. In Walnut Creek Peace Officers Association v. City of Walnut Creek (First Amendment Coalition) (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 940, the court considered a 2019 amendment to Penal Code section 832.7 which expanded access to peace officer records. The court held that the new law includes within its purview records created prior to the amendment. Thus, peace officer records created prior to 2019 are open to request by the public. Another issue concerning peace officers which was introduced and passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee is AB 392. AB 392 is designed to set revised standards for use of deadly force. This bill seeks to amend Penal Code sections 196 and 835a. At its root, the bill would add provisions that deadly force is permissible only if law enforcement have no other alternatives. The bill, known as the California Act to Save Lives, now heads to the Rules Committee and then to the full Assembly for vote. As always, please let us know of any public entity topics you would like addressed either in a Newsflash, in the Defense Comment magazine, at the annual meeting, or some other format. Please feel free to contact either Jim Arendt at james@walaw- fresno.com,orPatrickDeedonatpdeedon@ maire-law.com if you have any ideas. We will also endeavor to keep you updated on any significant updates in public entity law. Substantive Law Sections – continued from page 30 Continued on page 32