doctrines of implied waiver in California

2019Corp. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1294 , 1303, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 771 ["coverage under an insurance policy cannot be established by estoppel or waiver"].) " ' " 'The rule is well established that the doctrines of implied waiver and of estoppel, based upon the conduct or action of the insurer, are not available to bring within the coverage of a policy risks not covered by its terms, or risks expressly excluded therefrom, and the application of the doctrines in this respect is therefore to be distinguished from the waiver of, or estoppel to assert, grounds of forfeiture ....' " ' [Citation.]" ( Advanced N

2019Corp. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1294 , 1303, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 771 ["coverage under an insurance policy cannot be established by estoppel or waiver"].) " ' " 'The rule is well established that the doctrines of implied waiver and of estoppel, based upon the conduct or action of the insurer, are not available to bring within the coverage of a policy risks not covered by its terms, or risks expressly excluded therefrom, and the application of the doctrines in this respect is therefore to be distinguished from the waiver of, or estoppel to assert, grounds of forfeiture ....' " ' [Citation.]" ( Advanced N

2021Co. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1054 , 1066: “ ‘ “ ‘The rule is well established that the doctrines of implied waiver and of estoppel, based upon the conduct or action of the insurer, are not available to bring within the coverage of a policy risks not covered by its terms, or risks expressly excluded therefrom, and the application of the doctrines in this respect is therefore to be distinguished from the waiver of, or estoppel to assert, grounds of forfeiture. . . .’ ” ’ (Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Richmond (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 645, 653 .) ‘ “[I]t is the general and quite well settled rule of

2020LINA relies upon cases holding that waiver and estoppel cannot be used to create insurance coverage that does not otherwise exist. “ ‘ “ ‘The rule is well established that the doctrines of implied waiver and of estoppel, based upon the conduct or action of the insurer, are not available to bring within the coverage of a policy risks not covered by its terms, or risks expressly excluded therefrom, and the application of the doctrines in this respect is therefore to be distinguished from the waiver of, or estoppel to assert, grounds of forfeiture. . . .’ ” ’ (Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Richm

2021Co. (1980) 100 Cal.App.3d 739, 755 [‘Estoppel cannot be used to create coverage under an insurance policy where such coverage did not originally exist’]; Supervalu, Inc. v. Wexford Underwriting Managers, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 64, 77 [‘Supervalu is asserting estoppel to expand coverage under the policies, which is impermissible, rather than to simply avoid a forfeiture of benefits’].) ‘[T]here is a definite distinction between the waiver of a right to declare a forfeiture, to cancel or to rescind based upon some breach of a condition of the policy on the one hand and the extension of cove

2019Corp. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1294 , 1303, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 771 ["coverage under an insurance policy cannot be established by estoppel or waiver"].) " ' " 'The rule is well established that the doctrines of implied waiver and of estoppel, based upon the conduct or action of the insurer, are not available to bring within the coverage of a policy risks not covered by its terms, or risks expressly excluded therefrom, and the application of the doctrines in this respect is therefore to be distinguished from the waiver of, or estoppel to assert, grounds of forfeiture ....' " ' [Citation.]" ( Advanced N

2001Co., supra, 100 Cal.App.3d at p. 755 , 161 Cal.Rptr. 322 .) "`"The rule is well established that the doctrines of implied waiver and of estoppel, based upon the conduct or action of the insurer, are not available to bring within the coverage of a policy risks not covered by its terms, or risks expressly excluded therefrom....""' ( Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Richmond (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 645, 653 , 143 Cal.Rptr. 75 , citing Insurance Co. of North America v. Atlantic National Ins.

2001Co., supra, 100 Cal.App.3d at p. 755 , 161 Cal.Rptr. 322 .) "`"The rule is well established that the doctrines of implied waiver and of estoppel, based upon the conduct or action of the insurer, are not available to bring within the coverage of a policy risks not covered by its terms, or risks expressly excluded therefrom....""' ( Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Richmond (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 645, 653 , 143 Cal.Rptr. 75 , citing Insurance Co. of North America v. Atlantic National Ins.

2019Corp. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1294 , 1303, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 771 ["coverage under an insurance policy cannot be established by estoppel or waiver"].) " ' " 'The rule is well established that the doctrines of implied waiver and of estoppel, based upon the conduct or action of the insurer, are not available to bring within the coverage of a policy risks not covered by its terms, or risks expressly excluded therefrom, and the application of the doctrines in this respect is therefore to be distinguished from the waiver of, or estoppel to assert, grounds of forfeiture ....' " ' [Citation.]" ( Advanced N

2019Corp. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1294 , 1303, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 771 ["coverage under an insurance policy cannot be established by estoppel or waiver"].) " ' " 'The rule is well established that the doctrines of implied waiver and of estoppel, based upon the conduct or action of the insurer, are not available to bring within the coverage of a policy risks not covered by its terms, or risks expressly excluded therefrom, and the application of the doctrines in this respect is therefore to be distinguished from the waiver of, or estoppel to assert, grounds of forfeiture ....' " ' [Citation.]" ( Advanced N

2021Co. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1054 , 1066: “ ‘ “ ‘The rule is well established that the doctrines of implied waiver and of estoppel, based upon the conduct or action of the insurer, are not available to bring within the coverage of a policy risks not covered by its terms, or risks expressly excluded therefrom, and the application of the doctrines in this respect is therefore to be distinguished from the waiver of, or estoppel to assert, grounds of forfeiture. . . .’ ” ’ (Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Richmond (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 645, 653 .) ‘ “[I]t is the general and quite well settled rule of

2019Corp. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1294 , 1303, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 771 ["coverage under an insurance policy cannot be established by estoppel or waiver"].) " ' " 'The rule is well established that the doctrines of implied waiver and of estoppel, based upon the conduct or action of the insurer, are not available to bring within the coverage of a policy risks not covered by its terms, or risks expressly excluded therefrom, and the application of the doctrines in this respect is therefore to be distinguished from the waiver of, or estoppel to assert, grounds of forfeiture ....' " ' [Citation.]" ( Advanced N

2009(Peskin v. Phinney (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 632, 636 [ 6 Cal.Rptr. 389 ].) Pertinent here is the following wrinkle. “ ' “ ‘The rule is well established that the doctrines of implied waiver and of estoppel, based upon the conduct or action of the insurer, are not available to bring within the coverage of a policy risks not covered by its terms, or risks expressly excluded therefrom, and the application of the doctrines in this respect is therefore to be distinguished from the waiver of, or estoppel to assert, grounds of forfeiture. ...’”’ [Citation.]” (Manneck v. Lawyers Title Ins.

2009(Peskin v. Phinney (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 632, 636 [ 6 Cal.Rptr. 389 ].) Pertinent here is the following wrinkle. “ ' “ ‘The rule is well established that the doctrines of implied waiver and of estoppel, based upon the conduct or action of the insurer, are not available to bring within the coverage of a policy risks not covered by its terms, or risks expressly excluded therefrom, and the application of the doctrines in this respect is therefore to be distinguished from the waiver of, or estoppel to assert, grounds of forfeiture. ...’”’ [Citation.]” (Manneck v. Lawyers Title Ins.