Chateau Chamberay Homeowners Assn. v. Associated Internat. Ins. Co. (2001)

Annotate this Case
[No. B137320. Second Dist., Div. Three. July 30, 2001.]

CHATEAU CHAMBERAY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ASSOCIATED INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent.

[Modification of opinion (90 Cal. App. 4th 335; 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 776) on denial of petition for rehearing.]

THE COURT.-

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on June 29, 2001, be modified in the following particulars:

1. Page 16, line 12, after the word "insurer" insert ", for example," and on line 13 [90 Cal. App. 4th 348, advance report, 2d par., lines 1-2], italicize the word "may" so that lines 12 and 13 read as follows:

As the Fraley court emphasized, where an insurer, for example, is relying on the advice and opinions of independent experts, then a basis may exist for invoking the doctrine and

2. Page 17, line 4 [90 Cal. App. 4th 348, advance report, 2d par., line 7], italicize the word "automatically" so that line 4 reads as follows:

cautioned that an expert's testimony will not automatically insulate an insurer from a bad

Also on page 17, line 14 [90 Cal. App. 4th 349, advance report, line 2], at the end of the parenthetical phrase "(Guebara v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra, 237 F.3d at p. 996.)" add a new footnote designator and renumber subsequent footnotes accordingly. Line 14 and the new footnote text will read as follows:

investigation. (Guebara v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra, 237 F.3d at p. 996)† As we now [90 Cal. App. 4th 1413f]

________

† This list is certainly not intended to be exhaustive of the circumstances that may justify submission to a jury of an insurer's "genuine dispute" defense to a claim of bad faith. Nor, we must also add, may an insurer insulate itself from liability for bad faith conduct by the simple expedient of hiring an expert for the purpose of manufacturing a "genuine dispute."

3. Page 19, line 17 [90 Cal. App. 4th 350, advance report, 1st par., line 13], italicize the words "in light of the record as a whole," so that line 17 reads as follows:

correct. It is only necessary for us to determine that, in light of the record as a whole, its

Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.

There is no change in the judgment.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.