Mercury Casualty Co. v. Pasadena

by
Mercury filed suit against the City for inverse condemnation after a tree fell on the home of a couple insured by Mercury. The trial court entered judgment for Mercury, finding the tree that fell on the couple's home was a work of public improvement that supported an inverse condemnation claim. The Court of Appeal held, however, that the tree that fell on the couple's home did not constitute a work of public improvement for purposes of an inverse condemnation claim. In this case, there was no evidence that the City planted the tree as part of a construction project serving a public purpose, such as a roadway beautification project. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment and subsequent order awarding costs because the City could not be held inversely liable for the damage caused to the home. View "Mercury Casualty Co. v. Pasadena" on Justia Law