In a continuous and progressive injury case, an excess policy was not triggered until all collectible primary policies were exhausted, but multiple primary policies issued by the same insurer could not be “stacked.” ( Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corporation v. … Read More

Although an insured’s insolvency rendered it unable to pay a self-insured retention, that did not relieve the insurer of a duty to pay the covered portion of a judgment against the insured. ( Phillips v. Noetic Specialty Insurance Company (S.D. … Read More

In an automobile coverage dispute, after exhaustion of the policy deemed “primary” under Insurance Code section 11580.9(d), all policies covering the negligent driver must exhaust before any policies covering the driver’s vicariously liable employer are implicated. ( GuideOne Mutual Insurance … Read More

An “ordinance or law” exclusion in a first-party property policy barred coverage where a city ordered demolition of a partially-remodeled house because of floodplain regulations. ( Reichert v. State Farm General Insurance Company (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1543)

An exclusion for water that “backs up or overflows” from a sewer or drain applied even where a downstream blockage prevented the water from ever entering the sewer or drain. ( Cardio Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (2012) … Read More

Where a general liability policy only covered an additional insured for vicarious liability of the named insured, a claim by the additional insured against the named insured did not fall within a policy exclusion for “inter-insured claims.” ( Gemini Ins. … Read More

In an equitable contribution action between liability insurers, once a participating insurer proves a “potential for coverage” under a non-participating insurer’s policy, the burden shifts to the non-participating insurer to prove the “absence of actual coverage” under its policy. ( … Read More

An insurer was justified in denying coverage for the alleged theft of an automobile where the insured made numerous misrepresentations about the price he paid for the car, pre-existing damage, repair of the damage and when he last saw the … Read More

A policy’s “personal and advertising” coverage for “disparagement” was not triggered where the insured’s advertisements only mentioned the insured’s own products and never mentioned the claimant’s products. ( Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Swift Distribution, Inc. (2012) 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 679) … Read More

Even though an insured waited nine months to report a wildfire claim for smoke, soot and ash contamination, the insurer waived the defense by failing to promptly object and by proceeding to investigate the claim. In addition, even though other … Read More