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

The California Court of Appeal has held that toxic tort claims against an insured fell within the scope of a general liability policy’s “seepage / pollution / contamination” exclusion, and that the insured failed to satisfy the conditions necessary to … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has held that an insurer has no obligation under its policy’s supplementary payments provision to cover costs awarded in connection with a claim that was not potentially covered, even if the insurer defended the action … Read More

The California Supreme Court has held that, with respect to an accident involving a tractor-trailer rig, California Insurance Code section 11580.9(b) made the trailer lessor’s commercial auto policy “excess” to the tractor’s owner’s commercial auto policy. ( Sentry Select Ins. … Read More

The California Court of Appeal held that an insurer’s obligation of equitable contribution for defense costs arises where, after receiving actual or constructive notice of the lawsuit, a diligent inquiry by the insurer would reveal the potential exposure to a … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has ruled that a homeowners insurer properly denied a first-party claim where a contractor’s negligence damaged a plumbing pipe, which then caused corrosion, continuous seepage and leakage and, finally, mold. ( Freedman v. State Farm … Read More

Set forth below is a list of property and casualty insurance cases currently pending in the California Supreme Court, along with a summary of the primary issue(s) to be decided in each case. As the Supreme Court decides these cases … Read More

The California Supreme Court has issued a ruling which will significantly restrict the insurance industry’s ability to deny indemnity coverage based on the “qualified” (i.e., “sudden and accidental”) pollution exclusion. ( State of California v. Allstate Insurance Company (2009) 45 … Read More

Generally, an insurance “agent” is a person who transacts insurance on behalf of an admitted insurer. In contrast, an insurance “broker” is a person who transacts insurance with, but not on behalf of , an admitted insurer. (Insurance Code Section … Read More

A California Court of Appeal has held that an insured is entitled to combine or “stack” the policy limits of all applicable policies across all applicable policy periods in cases of continuous and progressive property damage and bodily injury, thus … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has held that a bad faith and punitive damages award was proper where an insurer conducted a biased investigation of a car theft claim, where the trial judge excluded evidence of the insured’s prior dishonest … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has held that a third-party claimant did not have standing to bring a declaratory relief action against the insured’s liability insurer to determine the scope of coverage under the insured’s policy. ( Otay Land Company v. … Read More

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, applying California law, has held that a liability policy’s “first publication” exclusion barred coverage for infringement claims where the insured first published allegedly infringing material before the policy period. ( United Nat. Ins. Co. … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has held that uninsured motorist coverage did not apply to a listed “driver” who, while crossing the street as a pedestrian, was struck by an uninsured motorist. ( Mercury Ins. Co. v. Pearson (2008) 169 … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has held that when an insured pays statutory attorney fees to plaintiffs as part of a settlement, those statutory attorney fees qualify as costs “taxed” against the insured under a “supplementary payments” provision in a … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has held that evidence of delays in handling a fire claim was sufficient to support a substantial award for emotional distress, attorney’s fees and punitive damages. ( Major v. Western Home Ins. Co. (2009) 2009 … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has held that a “professional services” exclusion did not relieve a general liability insurer of the duty to defend its insured, a consulting firm, against claims arising from injuries to a worker at a jobsite … Read More

The United States District Court, applying California law, has ruled that a liability insurer had a duty to defend its insureds against a taxpayer lawsuit suit which sought both injunctive relief and monetary “damages.” ( The Los Osos Community Services … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has held that, despite uncertainty as to who actually employed a worker who was killed in an accident, a subsequent wrongful death action against an insured did not trigger a defense obligation under the insured’s … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has ruled that the “genuine dispute” rule does not bar a complaint for bad faith where the insured alleges, in detail, that the insurer knowingly conducted a biased and incomplete investigation for the specific purpose … Read More