The California Court of Appeal has held that, where two separate insureds have two separate policies covering the same property, each insurer must pay for only a part of a loss to the property. ( Burns v. California Fair Plan … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has held that in a “continuous and progressive injury” case, the presence of other available insurance relieved the California Insurance Guarantee Association of any duty to contribute toward a judgment against the insured. ( Stonelight … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has held that, when a first-party insurer asserts a claim for reimbursement, the issue of whether the insured has been “made whole” is determined without deducting the attorney fees and costs the insured incurred in … Read More

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California has concluded that an insurer did not have any duty to defend a woman against claims arising from her husband’s alleged sexual molestation of their granddaughters. ( Miller v. … Read More

Whether Insurer Has Duty to Defend and Indemnify Insured in Administrative Proceeding Depends on Policy Language ( Ameron International Corporation v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1050) A recent ruling from the California Court of … Read More

( U.S. Specialty Insurance Co. v. Bridge Capital Corporation (2007) WL 1138863) A recent ruling illustrates that even where an insured discloses prior claims when applying for coverage, the insurer may rescind the policy if the insured mischaracterizes the nature … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has held that a homeowners insurer was required to defend its insured in an assault and battery case where there was a possibility that the insured had acted in “self-defense.”  ( Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has held that in a continuous injury case, an insured could not trigger a defense under an early excess policy as long as the insured had a later primary policy that applied to the loss—even … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has held that subcontractors’ insurers who defended a developer as an “additional insured” were entitled to recover a portion of the developer’s defense costs from the developer’s own excess insurer. ( Transcontinental Ins. Co. v. … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has held that employee dishonesty coverage for property for which an insured is “legally liable” applies when property has been bailed or entrusted to the insured, and is not third-party liability insurance. ( Simon Marketing … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has held that an insurer’s alleged inadequate investigation of a first-party fungus/collapse claim exposed the insurer to possible bad faith liability, and that the evidence of bad faith was sufficient to create a triable issue … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has held that a liability insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured, a landlord, against claims that the landlord failed to maintain and repair premises leased to a tenant. ( Golden Eagle … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has held that although a landslide resulted in damage during successive primary policy periods, there was only one “occurrence” and hence only one primary policy limit applied. ( Safeco Insurance Company of America v. Fireman’s … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has held that an insurer that issued a Directors and Officers liability policy had no duty to pay for a loss arising out of an insured’s failure to make payment under a contract. ( August … Read More

The California Court of Appeal has held that a liability insurer had no duty to defend an insured in an action alleging that the insured sent unsolicited advertisements to fax machines in violation of federal statutory law and common law … Read More

In a case of first impression, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that, in the context of multiple claims for bodily injury arising from asbestos exposure, the term “occurrence” in a commercial general liability policy referred to “injurious exposure … Read More

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, where covered and non-covered events are concurrent causes of indivisible pollution damage, an insured seeking indemnity under a liability policy is not required to allocate its liability based on the cause of … Read More

The Court of Appeal has held that, under the terms of Insurance Code section 11580.2 and a policy providing UM/UIM coverage, an insured seeking underinsured motorist benefits was required to arbitrate the issues liability and damages before proceeding with a … Read More

The California Supreme Court has held that in the context of a rental car transaction, an excess auto liability insurer satisfies its duty to investigate the insurability of an insured by inspecting the insured’s facially valid driver’s license and verifying … Read More