Where a liability insurer satisfied the requirements set forth in Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Jacobsen (2001) 25 Cal.4th 489 for seeking reimbursement of an uncovered settlement from an insured, the insurer was not also separately required to give the … Read More

If an insurer’s failure to adequately investigate the insurability of an insured prevents the insurer from later rescinding a policy covering a commercial motor vehicle, the insurer may be liable to the injured party for up to the higher limit … Read More

A general liability insurer had no duty under California Insurance Code section 481.5(b) to refund advance premiums paid by its insured because those premiums were “fully earned” and there was no “reduction in coverage.” ( CRV Imperial-Worthington LP v. Gemini … Read More

Where a liability insurer issues a preliminary “reservation of rights” letter, but never actually agrees to defend its insured and never actually pays any defense fees during the underlying litigation, the insurer is precluded from invoking Civil Code section 2860’s … Read More

Where an insured general contractor was fired from a construction job before the job was ever completed, a subsequent construction defect lawsuit against the insured fell within standard policy exclusion j.(6), and did not trigger the exclusion’s exception for property … Read More

Because an extended replacement cost provision did not actually alter the policy limit, but instead merely provided for a potential payment in excess of the limit, the insureds were still required to repair, rebuild or replace in order to recover … Read More

A personal umbrella insurer had no duty to defend its insured against a suit alleging that the insured had sexually harassed and sexually battered the claimant. ( Shanahan v. State Farm General Insurance Company (2011) WL 806385) Facts Cheryl Skigin … Read More

An insured must strictly comply with a warranty provision in order to obtain coverage when the subject matter of the warranty bears directly on the risk underwritten by the policy. ( Trishan Air Inc. v. Federal Ins. Company (2011) WL … Read More

A first-party property insurance exclusion that purports to eliminate coverage for “any” insured when another insured commits arson is broader than allowed by California law and, therefore, unenforceable. ( Century-National Insurance Co. v. Garcia (2011) WL 537627) Facts Jesus Garcia … Read More

A non-admitted insurer was not bound by a retail insurance broker’s issuance of an endorsement which purported to list a developer as an “additional insured” on the insurer’s policy. ( Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. American Safety Ins. … Read More

A liability insurer who was required to indemnify its insured did not have “superior equities” to, and thus could not pursue “equitable subrogation” against, the insured’s broker who allegedly was negligent in failing to procure other insurance to cover the … Read More

A suit against an insured seeking damages for “loss” of property was not a suit seeking damages for “loss of use” of property within the meaning of a standard commercial general liability policy. ( Advanced Network, Inc. v. Peerless Insurance … Read More

A federal administrative proceeding before an administrative law judge qualified as a “suit,” thus triggering an insurer’s duty to defend under a policy that did not define the term “suit.” ( Ameron Int’l Corp. v. Ins. Co. of the State … Read More

An insurer was found to have acted in bad faith in failing to defend and indemnify its insured, a catholic bishop, in a case arising from a priest’s sexual molestation of a young parishioner. ( Howard v. American National Fire … Read More

A general liability policy’s “anti- Montrose ” endorsements did not eliminate an insurer’s duty to defend an insured subcontractor in a construction defect case involving “continuous and progressively-deteriorating” property damage. ( Pennsylvania General Ins. Co. v. American Safety Indemnity Co. … Read More

An insurer who fails to follow its own underwriting guidelines’ investigation requirements, and who as a result does not discover an applicant’s material misrepresentations, may still raise the applicant’s misrepresentations as a defense to coverage. ( Colony Ins. Co. v. … Read More

Where an insured contends an insurer fraudulently induced the insured into entering into a settlement agreement, the insured cannot affirm the agreement, keep the money and sue for damages but, instead, must seek to rescind the settlement agreement in accordance … Read More

In light of the “going and coming” rule’s “required vehicle” exception, an employee was an “insured” for an auto accident while driving to work, with the result that his employer’s liability was barred from coverage by an “auto” exclusion in … Read More

There was no coverage for claimed property damage and loss of income where the insured failed to meet its initial burden of showing that business equipment had sustained “direct physical loss” or that the claimed damage was “accidental.” ( MRI … Read More

In the context of a general liability policy as a whole, a $25,000 “per claim” self-insured retention endorsement applied only once to a construction defect action involving multiple homes. ( Clarendon America Ins. Co. v. North American Capacity Ins. Co. … Read More