Chemical vs. Admiral Insurance (1995) 10 Cal.4th 645
In the context of continuous
or progressively deteriorating property or bodily injury losses insurable
under a third party CGL policy, as long as there remains uncertainty about
damage or injury that may occur during the policy period and the imposition
of liability upon the insured, and no legal obligation to pay third party
claims has been established, there is an insurable risk within the meaning
of sections 22 and 250 for which coverage may be sought under such a policy.
On Risk Analysis
(or download Spreadsheet)
Chemical vs. Superior Court (1993) 6 Cal.4th 287
Supreme Court has concluded
that "[t]he insured's desire to secure the right to call on the insurer's
superior resources for the defense of third party claims is, in all likelihood,
typically as significant a motive for the purchase of insurance as is the
wish to obtain indemnity for possible liability.
CNA Casualty vs. Seaboard
Surety (1986) 176 Cal.App 3d 598
Dillon vs. Hartford Accident
Indemnity (1974) 38 Cal.App. 3d 335
State Farm Mutual vs. Flynt
(1971) 17 Cal.App. 3d 538
Gray vs. Zurich Insurance
Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263
to Defend - Additional Insured - Allocation
Maryland Casualty Company
v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
to Defend - Additional Insureds
Pardee Construction Co.
v. Insurance Company of the West
- Contribution - Tender
Truck Insurance Exchange
v. Unigard Insurance Company
Coverage - Bad Advice - Roofing Consultant
Richard T. Ray v. Valley
Forge Insurance Company
- Emotional Distress - Construction Defect Claim
Erlich v. Menezes
Coverage - Insured - Successor Company
Westoil Terminals Co. v.
Harbor Insurance Co.
- Additional Insured Endorsement
National Union Fire Ins.
Co. of Pittsburgh v. Nationwide Ins. Co.
to Defend - Additional Insured Endorsement
Acceptance Insurance Co.
v. Syufy Enterprises
Faith - Settlement - Deductibles
New Hampshire Insurance
Co. v. Ridout Roofing Co., Inc.
Faith - Pre-Suit Obligations
San Diego Housing Commission
v. Industrial Indemnity Co.
- Additional Insured Endorsements - Construction Defect Litigation
Maryland Casualty Company
v. Nationwide Insurance Company
Coverage - Contractor Claim - Exclusions
William D. Collett v. Insurance
Company of the West
to Defend - Continuous Trigger - Construction Defect
Maryland Casualty Co. v.
National American Insurance Co. of California
Amended Civil Code Section
1375 applies to Actions after July 1, 2002.
Insured Endorsement Covering Liability "Arising Out Of" Named Insured's
Work Is Ambiguous
Acceptance Insurance Company
v. Syufy Enterprises 99 C.D.O.S. 534 (January 19, 1999)
General Liability Policy
Does Not Cover Contractor's Liability For Failure To Meet Project Deadline
Insurance Exchange v. Superior Court, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3067 (March
Homes vs. American States Insurance Company
Plaintiff Presley Homes,
Inc. sued defendant American States Insurance Company seeking damages,
plus declaratory and injunctive relief. Defendant cross-complained
against plaintiff for declaratory relief. The action involves a dispute
over the extent of defendant’s obligation under the additional insured
endorsements of two insurance policies to provide plaintiff with a defense
in a third party’s construction defects lawsuit. Plaintiff was entitled
to have defendant provide a defense to the entire action as a matter of
public policy. To defend meaningfully, the insurer must defend immediately.
To defend immediately, it must defend entirely. It cannot parse the
claims, dividing those that are at least potentially covered from those
that are not. To do so would be time consuming.
Crop Dusting Co. v. Superior Court
There is a duty to defend,
because the test of an "occurrence" of property damage under the CGL policy
is not when the plaintiff was injured, but rather when the land was damaged.
vs. Superior Court (The William Lyon Company)
The court held that other
"economic damages" would not be recoverable under a negligence theory.
This means that homeowners and associations can no longer recover the cost
of repairing structural problems in homes until physical damage occurs.
- Attorneys' Fees - Damages
Golden Eagle Insurance
Company v. Insurance Company of the West (Court of Appeal, Fourth District
- June 26, 2002)
This case states it is the
first to hold that attorneys' fees and costs awarded pursuant to an indemnity
agreement and insured under a contractual liability provision are "damages"
under a general liability policy. (Caselaw)
JEFFREY N. et al., vs. CENTEX HOMES
A defendant builder of mass
produced housing may be held strictly liable for construction defects.
This question is firmly established in California cases beginning 30 years
ago. The court held that the damage plaintiffs sustained to their home
is physical injury falling outside the parameters of economic loss and
is thus compensable under strict liability in tort. The order denying plaintiffs’
motion to recover expert fees as damages is reversed. The judgment
in favor of plaintiffs is modified to include an additional $37,500 representing
those damages. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed. Plaintiffs
shall recover their costs on appeal.
Garmendi vs. Golden Eagle
Judgment after insurer's
withdrawal in not a Default Jugdment, and plaintiffs were not limited to
Gray Cary vs. Vigilant Insurance
Civil Code 2860 does not
require arbitration of dispute between insurer and insured regarding cost
of defending insured's investigator.
Low vs. Golden Eagle
No voluntary payment clause
is enforceable post-tender unless insurer has wrongfully rejected tender.
Baroco West vs. Scottsdale
There is no duty to defend
under a completed operations policy when the project was completed after
the expiration of the policy.
Rosen vs. State Farm
Clear and unambiguous policy
language takes precedence over public policy.
Employers Insurance of Wausau
vs. Granite State
Successive primary policies
are liable for more than one year's policy limit where a single occurrence
causes damage during multiple years.
Century Surety vs. United
Primary policy that purports
to be excess to other valid and collectible insurance must participate
on a pro rata basis with other primary policies.