Yu v. West Bend Mutual Ins. Co. CA4/3

── Yu v. West Bend Mutual Ins. Co. CA4/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/28/26 Yu v. West Bend Mutual Ins. Co. CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE BANN-SHIANG LIZA YU, Plaintiff and Appellant, G064542 v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2009- 00255065) WEST BEND MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, OPINION Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, William D. Claster, Judge. Affirmed. Lex Opus, Mohammed K. Ghods, Jeremy A. Rhyne and Lori L. Speak for Plaintiff and Appellant. Kirtland & Packard and Robert A. Muhlbach for Defendant and Respondent.  Since 2009, plaintiff Bann-Shiang Liza Yu has pursued claims against multiple insurance companies for, inter alia, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and for contribution following settlements in a construction defect lawsuit filed over 20 years ago. Those settlements included assignments to Yu of various parties’ rights to pursue those insurers which did not participate in the construction defect action. This appeal is from the judgment entered in favor of one of those insurers, defendant West Bend Insurance Company, following a bench trial on stipulated issues remaining in the case. The trial court issued a statement of decision containing the court’s finding that neither Yu nor West Bend’s insured, ATMI Design Build, provided West Bend notice of Yu’s construction defect action against ATMI until well after Yu settled with ATMI. In light of the notice and no-voluntary-payments provisions contained in the relevant West Bend insurance policies and governing law, the court concluded Yu is unable to recover against West Bend on any theory. We affirm. Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings on notice. Because those findings are dispositive as to West Bend’s liability to Yu in this case, we do not address Yu’s challenges to other rulings and findings by the court which limited the type and amount of recovery she might have been entitled to had West Bend been provided notice. FACTUAL AND PROCEDUAL HISTORY I. THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT In January 2002, Yu, a developer, entered into a contract with ATMI to act as the general contractor for the construction of a hotel in Anaheim (the project). (Yu v. West Bend Mutual insurance Company (Feb. 14, 2 2018, G053358) [nonpub. opn.] (Yu).) Construction on the project began in September 2002. In 2004, ATMI allegedly abandoned the project. Himes Peters Jepsen Architects (HPJA), with which Yu had already contracted to act as architects on the project, took over as the general contractor for the project. (Yu, supra, G053358.) II. ATMI IS INSURED BY, INTER ALIA, WEST BEND West Bend issued annual comprehensive general liability policies to ATMI from June 30, 2000, through June 30, 2003 (West Bend policies). (Yu, supra, G053358.) The West Bend policies contained provisions requiring ATMI to notify West Bend as soon as practical if a claim is made or a lawsuit is brought against it. The West Bend polici