An auto insurer could not validly exclude coverage for an insured’s liability for bodily injury suffered by a non-relative resident of the insured’s household. ( Mercury Casualty Co. v. Chu (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1432) Facts Mercury Casualty Company issued an … Read More

Pursuant to California Insurance Code section 11580.9, a policy which specifically described the tractor portion of a tractor/trailer rig was “primary” to another policy which did not describe any portion of the rig. ( Scottsdale Indemnity Co. v. National Continental … Read More

Whether a producer was a “broker” (acting on behalf of the insured) or an “agent” (acting on behalf of the insurer) was a question of fact where the insurer sought to rescind due to misrepresentations on the application. ( Douglas … Read More

An “employment-related practices” exclusion relieved a commercial general liability insurer of any duty to defend an insured employer against a suit arising from an alleged “strip search” of its employees. ( Jon Davler, Inc. v. Arch Insurance Co. (2014) 2014 … Read More

Under California law, a defendant’s act of unloading an injured passenger from a motor vehicle constituted a “use” of that motor vehicle. ( Encompass Ins. Co. v. Coast National Ins. Co. (2014) WL 3930197) Facts Anthony Watson was driving a … Read More

An insured could maintain a bad faith lawsuit against an insurer who allegedly forced the insured to arbitrate his uninsured motorist claim without ever fairly investigating, evaluating and attempting to resolve the insured’s claim. ( Maslo v. Ameriprise Auto & … Read More

A homeowners insurer had no duty to defend its insureds against a lawsuit alleging that the insureds conspired to aid in the abduction of a child. ( Upasani v. State Farm General Insurance Company (2014) WL 2885928) Facts Avinash Kulkarni … Read More

A commercial general liability policy’s “personal and advertising” coverage for “disparagement” was not triggered where the insured’s advertisements did not specifically refer to and clearly derogate the claimant’s products. ( Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Swift Distribution, Inc. (2014) 2014 … Read More

A commercial general liability insurer was not obligated to defend its insured, a steel subcontractor, against a suit arising from the insured’s installation of allegedly inadequate seismic tie hooks in an apartment building. ( Regional Steel Corp. v. Liberty Surplus … Read More

A California appellate court has allowed an insured to proceed with a lawsuit against an insurance adjuster for negligent misrepresentation and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of the insurance adjuster’s alleged misconduct in handling the insured’s property claim. … Read More

For purposes of commercial automobile coverage, an insured is deemed to “hire” or “borrow” a vehicle only if the insured exercises exclusive “dominion and control” over the vehicle. ( Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. LK Transp., Inc. (E.D. … Read More

A commercial auto policy’s “employee” exclusion did not relieve an insurer of a duty to defend its insured when there was factual dispute as to whether the injured claimant was an “employee” or an “independent contractor” of the insured. ( … Read More

An insurance broker owed no duty to its client to investigate the financial condition of an insurer before placing the client’s insurance with the insurer. ( Mark Tanner Construction, Inc. v. HUB International Insurance Services, Inc. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 574) … Read More

In evaluating allegedly ambiguous language in liability policy, the reasonable expectations of the named insured may differ from the reasonable expectations of an additional insured. ( Transport Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216) Facts Vulcan Materials Company … Read More

A general liability policy that covered products-completed operations but excluded professional services did not relieve the insurer of a duty to defend its insured, an engineering firm, against claims that the insured was negligent in constructing an earthen dam which … Read More

A food truck owned by the insured qualified as “mobile equipment,” and therefore was not subject to a standard “auto” exclusion contained within the insured’s commercial general liability policy. ( American States Ins. Co. v. Travelers Property Casualty Ins. Co. … Read More

Where a residential home builder’s sales contract included a right-to-repair addendum based on a “Right to Repair” statute, an insurer who arranged for repairs of water damage to an insured’s property before notifying the builder was barred from pursuing a … Read More

California statutes did not require, and various automobile policies themselves did not provide, underinsured motorist coverage for the named insured’s adult, non-resident daughter who was killed while she was a pedestrian. ( Berendes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th … Read More

An insurance broker has no legal duty to procure insurance coverage for an insured beyond what the insured requests. ( San Diego Assemblers, Inc. v. Work Comp for Less Insurance Services, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1363) Facts San Diego Assemblers, … Read More

An auto exclusion in a homeowners insurance policy barred coverage where the insured’s negligent supervision of her granddaughter exposed the granddaughter to the risk of negligent operation of an auto. ( Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th … Read More