The California Court of Appeal has held that the issue of whether a UM/UIM claimant qualifies as an “insured” is a jurisdictional issue that must be decided by an arbitrator, and that policy provisions that purport to remove such issues … Read More
The California Court of Appeal has held that a directors and officers policy did not cover a nonprofit organization’s directors for liability arising from the organization’s alleged default on municipal bonds. ( Medill v. Westport Ins. Corp. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th … Read More
The California Supreme Court has ruled that when a vacancy exclusion is subject to an exception for a building “under construction,” the exception applies not only to new construction but to renovations and additions, provided the work requires the substantial … Read More
The California Court of Appeal has held that two liability insurers could not obtain equitable contribution from three other liability insurers who either had no notice of the underlying action or no coverage for that action. ( American International Specialty … Read More
The California Court of Appeal has held that a liability insurer that initially refused to defend its insured in a lawsuit could not later intervene in the lawsuit in an attempt to prevent the insured from settling with the plaintiff. … Read More
The California Court of Appeal has held that despite the coverage afforded by a liability policy’s “supplementary payments” clause, Insurance Code section 533 prohibits an insurer from indemnifying an insured for statutory attorney’s fees awarded to the plaintiff in a … Read More
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that California Insurance Code section 533 does not necessarily preclude coverage for claims arising from an insured’s alleged breach of fiduciary duties. ( Unified Western Grocers, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. … Read More
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California has held that an insurer was entitled to rescind an insurance policy based on the insured’s misrepresentations about its loss history, and that the insurer did not unreasonably delay … Read More
The California Court of Appeal has held that a commercial general liability policy covered an insured for progressive property damage which occurred during the policy period, even though the claimant did not own the property until after the policy period. … Read More
The California Court of Appeal has held that a liability insurer may obtain equitable contribution from a coinsurer for defense costs paid on behalf of a mutual insured, even though the mutual insured had previously signed a release in favor … Read More
The California Court of Appeal has held that in an equitable contribution action to recover settlement costs, a participating insurer must only show a potential for coverage under the non-participating insurer’s policy, and the burden then shifts to the non-participating … Read More
The California Court of Appeal has held that a liability policy’s “auto” exclusion barred coverage for an insured’s alleged negligence in leaving her foster children in a parked car where they died from heat exposure. ( Prince v. United National … Read More
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California has held that defective computer chips that were incorporated into computer disk drives did not cause “property damage” within the meaning of a commercial general liability policy. ( Atmel … Read More
The California Court of Appeal has held that an excess judgment against an insured is required before an excess insurer can maintain an equitable subrogation action against a primary insurer for unreasonable failure to settle. ( RLI Insurance Company v. … Read More
The California Court of Appeal has held that appraisers only have authority to determine the amount of loss, and do not have authority to determine the cause of loss or any other coverage issue. ( Kacha v. Allstate Insurance Company … Read More
The California Court of Appeal has held that the term “damages” under a standard CGL policy means court-ordered judgments and that affirmative defenses are not “suits” that trigger a duty to defend. (CDM Investors v. Travelers Cas. And Sur. Co. … Read More
A United States District Court held that a D&O insurer had no duty to advance 100 percent of the legal fees incurred by the insured to defend an underlying lawsuit, based on a policy provision giving the insurer power to … Read More
The California Court of Appeal has ruled that a named insured’s spouse had standing to sue a CGL insurer for breach of contract and bad faith, even though the spouse was not a named defendant in the underlying suit. (Century Surety … Read More
The California Court of Appeal has ruled that, even if an insurer’s rescission of a policy was improper, the insured must still file suit within the time prescribed in the policy’s contractual limitation clause. (Akin v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of … Read More