An insured’s alleged negligence in supervising an employee does not constitute an “occurrence,” or “accident,” within the meaning of a general liability policy. ( L.A. Checker Cab Cooperative, Inc. v. First Specialty Ins. Co. (2010) 2010 WL 235430) Facts L.A. … Read More

A provision in a commercial general liability insurance policy requiring the insurer to “defend the insured against any ‘suit’ seeking … damages” to which the insurance applies includes the duty to defend the insured in proceedings under the Calderon Act. … Read More

The California Supreme Court has held that based on a policy’s “severability” clause, an exclusion for the intentional act of “an” insured only applied to the particular insured who committed the intentional act, and did not apply to another insured … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has held that an automobile liability policy’s “step-down” provision, which reduced liability limits for permissive users, was “conspicuous, plain and clear” and thus limited the coverage that was available to a permissive user. ( Dominguez … Read More

A general liability policy unambiguously provided that the policy’s self-insured retention could only be satisfied by the named insured, and not by someone else such as an additional insured. ( Forecast Homes , Inc . v . Steadfast Ins . … Read More

An insured’s failure to answer questions at an examination under oath (even on advice of counsel), combined with failure to submit a complete and supported proof of loss form, defeated the insured’s suit for breach of contract and bad faith. … Read More

When an insured has two policies through the same insurer, providing a defense under one policy does not insulate the insurer from liability for its alleged breach of the duty to defend and settle under a second policy. ( Risely … Read More

Interpreting a policy that provided business interruption coverage for net income “and” continuing normal operating expenses, the California Court of Appeal has held that even if the insured was operating at a net loss, the insured is still entitled to … Read More

Where a policyholder’s appraiser was serving as an expert for the policyholder’s attorney in an unrelated case, there was no “impression of possible bias” and no basis to disqualify the appraiser from the appraisal panel. ( Mahnke v. Superior Court … Read More

Fax blasting is not covered under a commercial general liability policy’s “advertising injury” or “property damage” coverages, because fax blasting does not involve the publication of “material that violates a person’s right of privacy,” nor is it the result of … Read More

A commercial general liability policy’s “products-completed operations hazard” exclusion precludes coverage for bodily injuries arising out of the insured’s completed services, even if those services are not related to the insured’s products. ( Baker v. Nat’l Interstate Ins. Co. (2010) … Read More

An insured’s good faith but mistaken construction of a house on neighboring property does not constitute an “occurrence,” or “accident,” within the meaning of a homeowners policy. ( Fire Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 388) Facts Kenneth … Read More

A third party who bought a fire-damaged property at a sheriff’s sale was not entitled to insurance proceeds issued for the property, and an insurer was entitled to a refund from the lender to the extent the loan was satisfied … Read More

A general liability insurer had no duty to indemnify its insured for third-party property damage claims resulting from a landslide where the policy unambiguously barred coverage for all property damages arising out of land subsidence “for any reason whatsoever.” ( … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has held that a general liability policy’s “first publication” exclusion relieved an insurer of any duty to defend an insured in a suit for trademark infringement. ( Kim Seng Company v. Great American Insurance Company … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has held that a general liability policy’s “contractors warranty endorsement” relieved the insurer of any duty to indemnify a general contractor who had failed to obtain indemnity agreements and certificates of insurance from its subcontractors. … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has held that an insurer that refuses to defend its insured in a third-party lawsuit cannot later file a complaint in intervention in that litigation, because the insurer, having denied coverage, does not have a … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has held that a homeowners and personal umbrella insurer had no duty to indemnify its insureds for compensatory damages and statutory attorney’s fees awarded against the insureds after the insureds falsely imprisoned and exploited a … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has held that where an insurance agent or broker claims to have special knowledge of an insured’s business risks and exposures, the agent/broker assumes a special duty to obtain proper coverage, and can be liable … Read More

The California Supreme Court has held that a homeowners insurer had no duty to defend its insured in an assault and battery case, even though the insured may negligently and unreasonably have believed that he was acting in “self-defense.” ( … Read More