Barnett v. State Farm General Insurance
200 Cal. App. 4th 536
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Barnett held a State Farm homeowners policy covering direct physical loss including theft; policy covered property on a named peril basis with trees/plants included; CMPD executed a search warrant Aug. 10, 2007, seizing marijuana plants, freezer bags of marijuana, and rolling papers; items were stored as evidence and later destroyed; Barnett sought return and filed a theft claim with State Farm in Sept. 2007, which was denied in Oct. 2008 after criminal charges were filed; Barnett challenged the warrant’s particulars, including failure to disclose prior medical marijuana context; the trial court granted State Farm summary judgment finding no theft occurred; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether police seizure under a search warrant constitutes theft under the policy | Barnett: seizures were theft under policy terms | State Farm: seizure was lawful under warrant and not theft | No theft occurred; seizure under a facially valid warrant does not satisfy criminal theft under the policy |
| Whether destruction of seized marijuana after denial of return petition constitutes theft | Barnett: destruction was embezzlement/theft by police | State Farm: destruction followed a court order and statutory procedure, not theft | Destruction did not constitute theft; legal process governs disposition of seized property |
| Whether a later determination of whether Barnett lawfully possessed marijuana affects the theft analysis | Barnett: possession issues retroactively transform seizure into theft | State Farm: initial taking is governed by warrant; later possession law does not retroactively render it theft | Initial seizure lacked criminal intent to steal; later possession determinations do not retroactively create theft |
| Whether claim of right defeats the criminal element necessary for theft | Barnett: bona fide medical marijuana claim negates theft | State Farm: claim of right does not render initial taking theft; officers seizure under color of law remains lawful | Claim of right negates theft element; but here seizure was not theft regardless of later possession |
| Whether policy coverage for theft applies when property is taken by officers under a warrant | Barnett: policy should cover losses as theft | State Farm: policy does not cover governmental seizure absent theft | Policy coverage not triggered by government seizure; no theft exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Granger v. New Jersey Ins. Co., 108 Cal.App.2d 290 (Cal. App. 1930) (theft and related terms understood in ordinary meaning; felonious taking required)
- Jackson v. Teachers Ins. Co., 30 Cal.App.3d 341 (Cal. App. 1973) (police seizure of stolen property by innocent purchaser not theft)
- People v. Davis, 19 Cal.4th 301 (Cal. 1998) (felonious intent to permanently deprive required for theft)
- People v. Fenderson, 188 Cal.App.4th 625 (Cal. App. 2010) (claim of right can negate criminal character of taking)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good faith reliance on facially valid warrant; probable cause not always required)
- People v. Fisher, 96 Cal.App.4th 1147 (Cal. App. 2002) (search warrants; warrant is a court directive, not discretionary entry)
- City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court, 157 Cal.App.4th 355 (Cal. App. 2007) (medical marijuana defense; not immunity from search execution)
- Danulevich v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 36 Conn.Supp. 570 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1980) (distinguishable on lack of lawful basis for theft finding)
- American Alternative Ins. Corp. v. Superior Court, 135 Cal.App.4th 1239 (Cal. App. 2006) (insurer not liable where governmental acts fall outside coverage)