The California Court of Appeal has concluded that a liability policy’s “development/construction exclusion” applied only if the insured—and not some third party—engaged in the excluded activity. ( Marquez Knolls Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc. (2007) WL … Read More

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

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

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

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 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

( 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 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 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 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