cannot be resolved on summary judgment regarding the enforceability of the provisions in the Agreements barring consequential damages. Thus, summary judgment is only proper if Defendants have established that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the availability of the damages sought by Plaintiffs under California law in the absence of enforceable provisions in the Agreements limiting liability. The Court concludes that Defendants have met this burden as to diminution in value damages but not as to lost rent. 1. The Limitati racts which “have for their object ... to exempt any one from responsibility for his own fraud ... are against the policy of the law.” Cal. Civ.Code § 1668; see also Blankenheim v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 217 Cal.App.3d 1463, 1471, 266 Cal.Rptr. 593 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs have presented evidence which, if
holding that rochez did not foreclose respondeat superior liability for brokerdealers for the fraudulent acts of their employees holding that intentional acts exclusion applies to intentional act of child molestation holding that under  1668 a party may not contract away liability for fraudulent or intentional acts holding that intentional acts do not exclude coverage under the occurrence language unless the injury was expected or intended holding that liability insurer had duty to defend insured against complaint that alleged intentional tort and negligence in the alternative even when policy excluded coverage for intentional torts