published opinions
Aetna Casualty & Surety Company v. Richmond, (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 645. An important case involving the scope of products liability and completed operations coverage under a CGL policy; duty to defend and agency issues; waiver and estoppel. The case established that it is the duty of the insured to read his policy. It held that service to a product will not create coverage for products liability where otherwise excluded.
Zurich-American Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mutual, (1978), 85 Cal.App.3d 481. This case involved the ordering of primary and excess coverages related to a loss under Ins. Code §11580.9 and questions of contribution between coinsurers.
McCall v. Great American Ins. Co., (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 993. This automobile case involves Ins. Code §11580.9(b) holding that the loan car insured as a “temporary substitute vehicle” was primary over the long term lessors’ coverage. The focus is placed on the long term leased car, not the temporary loaner.
Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Sukut Construction Co., (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 673. This case involved an attorney’s E&O policy. This is an important case defining when a “claim” is made under a claims made policy. The case defines a “claim” as a demand as a right, or as due. Here, the client orally demanded the insured attorney correct a lien problem due to narrow drafting and do so without payment. That constituted a “claim.”
Hancock Laboratories v. Admiral Ins. Co., (9th Circuit 1985) 777 F.2d 520. In this case, the 9th Circuit Court weighed in on the long standing issue of “trigger of coverage” where actual damage was done under the first policy, but discovery of the actual damage did not take place until the second policy was on risk. The case was based on the federal court’s opinion of what the California Supreme Court would do under the continuing damage issue.
Peerless Lighting Corp. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 995. This is one of the few cases addressing the scope of coverage under the “Advertising Injury” personal injury coverage of the CGL policy. This important case reviews the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify, the value of extrinsic facts, the construction of policy interpretation. The court held the offense of advertising injury must be committed in the course of advertising the insured’s product.
Zurich-American Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mutual, (1978), 85 Cal.App.3d 481. This case involved the ordering of primary and excess coverages related to a loss under Ins. Code §11580.9 and questions of contribution between coinsurers.
McCall v. Great American Ins. Co., (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 993. This automobile case involves Ins. Code §11580.9(b) holding that the loan car insured as a “temporary substitute vehicle” was primary over the long term lessors’ coverage. The focus is placed on the long term leased car, not the temporary loaner.
Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Sukut Construction Co., (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 673. This case involved an attorney’s E&O policy. This is an important case defining when a “claim” is made under a claims made policy. The case defines a “claim” as a demand as a right, or as due. Here, the client orally demanded the insured attorney correct a lien problem due to narrow drafting and do so without payment. That constituted a “claim.”
Hancock Laboratories v. Admiral Ins. Co., (9th Circuit 1985) 777 F.2d 520. In this case, the 9th Circuit Court weighed in on the long standing issue of “trigger of coverage” where actual damage was done under the first policy, but discovery of the actual damage did not take place until the second policy was on risk. The case was based on the federal court’s opinion of what the California Supreme Court would do under the continuing damage issue.
Peerless Lighting Corp. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 995. This is one of the few cases addressing the scope of coverage under the “Advertising Injury” personal injury coverage of the CGL policy. This important case reviews the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify, the value of extrinsic facts, the construction of policy interpretation. The court held the offense of advertising injury must be committed in the course of advertising the insured’s product.