<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://resources.bnet.com/">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[california supreme court and insurance Resources | BNET]]></title>
	<link><![CDATA[http://resources.bnet.com/topic/california+supreme+court+and+insurance.html]]></link>
	<description><![CDATA[White papers, case studies, business articles, and blog posts relating to california supreme court and insurance]]></description>
	<s:counts start="0" returned="20" found="24" />
	<language>en-us</language>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Court cases impacting businesses.(BUSINESS LAW)]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5963/is_200801/ai_n24100946]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Workers can be fired for using marijuana prescribed by doctors. The  California Supreme Court says that Proposition 215, the initiative  permitting medical use of marijuana, is no protection from being let go  for violating federal drug laws. Disability laws are also no defense for  those who...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Research articles]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:59:59 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/california+supreme+court.html"><![CDATA[California Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/insurance.html"><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/.html"><![CDATA[]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Employers awaiting a major wage and hours court decision.(BUSINESS LAW)]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5963/is_200712/ai_n24100931]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Employers are awaiting a major wage and hours court decision that  could revoke the exempt status of thousands of employees. The California  Supreme Court has agreed to consider an appeal by insurers, who argue  that claims adjusters are exempt from overtime because they do  administrative tasks....]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Research articles]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:59:59 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/benefits.html"><![CDATA[Benefits]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/california+supreme+court.html"><![CDATA[California Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/insurance.html"><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/salary.html"><![CDATA[salary]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/.html"><![CDATA[]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[PREVIOUS KEY DECISIONS CITED IN STRINGFELLOW CASE.(News)(Brief article)]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5252/is_200701/ai_n20165798]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. vs. Partridge,  California Supreme Court, 1973: A homeowner's insurance policy must  cover a loss that was caused in part by an insured event, because  another contributing cause was covered.    Aydin vs. First State Insurance Co., California Supreme Court,...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Research articles]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:59:59 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/california+supreme+court.html"><![CDATA[California Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/finance.html"><![CDATA[FINANCE]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/insurance.html"><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/policyholder.html"><![CDATA[policyholder]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/pollution.html"><![CDATA[pollution]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/.html"><![CDATA[]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Taking the Last Step in Insurance Law's Most Significant Event: The End of First-Party Insurance Bad Faith in California]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4023/is_200607/ai_n16731445]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[I. INTRODUCTION An examination of the past twenty-five years in the field of insurance law presents a panoply of dramatic events that have had a significant impact on the insurance industry and make it difficult to select the single most significant development in the field. One tends to focus on...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Research articles]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Jul 2006 23:59:59 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/california+supreme+court.html"><![CDATA[California Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/covenant.html"><![CDATA[covenant]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/distress.html"><![CDATA[distress]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/finance.html"><![CDATA[FINANCE]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/fletcher.html"><![CDATA[Fletcher]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/insurance.html"><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/neal.html"><![CDATA[Neal]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/.html"><![CDATA[]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[RemedyTemp to Challenge State Appeal Court Decision in Workers' Compensation Case]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2004_Oct_21/ai_n6246478]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[ALISO VIEJO, Calif. -- RemedyTemp, Inc. (Nasdaq:REMX), which operates as Remedy Intelligent StaffingR and RemXR Specialty Staffing, today said it will ask the California Supreme Court to review the ruling by a California Court of Appeal panel that the insurers that covered RemedyTemp's client firms, and not the California Insurance...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Research articles]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:59:59 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/california+supreme+court.html"><![CDATA[California Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/insurance.html"><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/remedy+corp..html"><![CDATA[Remedy Corp.]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/staffing.html"><![CDATA[staffing]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/.html"><![CDATA[]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[California Supreme Court refuses to give literal effect to jewelers' block policy language limiting coverage]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6645/is_3_71/ai_n29121651]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[E.M.M.I., Inc. v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 84 P. 3d 38, 9 Cal. Reptr. 3d 701 (California Supreme Court--February 23, 2004)  Perhaps because of the high risk of moral hazard or outright fraud through "inside jobs" and because of the often suspicious-looking circumstances of jewelry losses (e.g., a courier...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Research articles]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2004 23:59:59 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/california+supreme+court.html"><![CDATA[California Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/insurance.html"><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/policyholder.html"><![CDATA[policyholder]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/zurich.html"><![CDATA[Zurich]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/.html"><![CDATA[]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[California Supreme Court refuses to give effect to automobile policy language restricting coverage for permissive users of vehicle; coverage-limiting language insufficiently "conspicuous, plain, and clear" to be enforced]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6645/is_3_71/ai_n29121652]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Haynes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 32 Cal. 4th 1198, 89 P. 3d 381 (California Supreme Court--May 17, 2004)  Haynes involved an automobile policy that provided, in two separate portions of the policy, there was no coverage for claims made arising out of permissive use of the vehicle. Policyholder William...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Research articles]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2004 23:59:59 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/accident.html"><![CDATA[accident]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/california+supreme+court.html"><![CDATA[California Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/farmers.html"><![CDATA[FARMERS]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/insurance.html"><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/.html"><![CDATA[]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Maryland Catholics Hear Birth Control Ruling Won't Apply.]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5553/is_200403/ai_n22126294]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[By Marguerite Higgins, The Washington Times Knight Ridder/Tribune  Business News    Mar. 3--Roman Catholic organizations in Maryland will not be forced  to  provide health insurance that covers contraceptives in the wake of a   California Supreme Court ruling because Maryland law has broader ...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Research articles]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:59:59 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/benefits.html"><![CDATA[Benefits]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/california+supreme+court.html"><![CDATA[California Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/church.html"><![CDATA[church]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/finance.html"><![CDATA[FINANCE]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/healthcare.html"><![CDATA[HEALTHCARE]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/insurance.html"><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/maryland.html"><![CDATA[Maryland]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/software.html"><![CDATA[SOFTWARE]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/.html"><![CDATA[]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Absolute Pollution Exclusion: The Summer Blockbusters. ]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1494/is_200310/ai_n9226879]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Maniloff is Chair of the Insurance Coverage Group at Philadelphia-based Christie, Pabarue, Mortensen and Young, P.C., where he concentrates his practice in the representation of insurers in coverage disputes.  Maniloff handles a wide variety of insurance coverage matters in both the litigation and non-litigation arenas, including environmental property damage,...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Research articles]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2003 23:59:59 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/2d.html"><![CDATA[2d]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/california+supreme+court.html"><![CDATA[California Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/contaminant.html"><![CDATA[contaminant]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/exclusion.html"><![CDATA[exclusion]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/insurance.html"><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/pollution.html"><![CDATA[pollution]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/.html"><![CDATA[]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Policyholder may receive coverage despite lost liability policies so long as other proof is sufficient to demonstrate existence of insurance]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6645/is_1_70/ai_n28989092]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Dart Industries, Inc., v. Commercial Union Insurance Co., 52 P.3d 79 (California Supreme Court--August 19, 2002)  Long-tail liability claims have driven a good deal of the development of insurance law during the past quarter-century. One recurring issue with such claims is the matter of proving entitlement to insurance. Recently,...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Research articles]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Mar 2003 23:59:59 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/california+supreme+court.html"><![CDATA[California Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/des.html"><![CDATA[DES]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/finance.html"><![CDATA[FINANCE]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/insurance.html"><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/networking.html"><![CDATA[NETWORKING]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/policyholder.html"><![CDATA[policyholder]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/security.html"><![CDATA[SECURITY]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/.html"><![CDATA[]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[EPLI may cover many wage/hour suits. (Policyholder Lawyers' Perspective).(employee practices liability insurance)]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5249/is_200302/ai_n20027324]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[During the last two years, a substantial number of wage/hour class  action lawsuits have been filed by employees against their employers  seeking to recover damages and other relief for the nonpayment of  overtime wages.    While some employers assume t  During the last two...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Research articles]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2003 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/california+supreme+court.html"><![CDATA[California Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/insurance.html"><![CDATA[insurance]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/insurance+company.html"><![CDATA[insurance company]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/lawsuit.html"><![CDATA[lawsuit]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/misrepresentation.html"><![CDATA[misrepresentation]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/restitution.html"><![CDATA[restitution]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/.html"><![CDATA[]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[California Supreme Court Issues Ruling With Broad Implications For Property Insurers]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://jobfunctions.bnet.com/abstract.aspx?docid=77195]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[This article discusses issues ruling with broad implications for property insurers. An insurer that denies a claim on the ground that it does not exceed the deductible may be stopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense. The decision is potentially significant in a number of respects. The...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[White papers]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Dec 2001 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/california+supreme+court.html"><![CDATA[California Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/insurance+company.html"><![CDATA[Insurance Company]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/shaw+pittman.html"><![CDATA[Shaw Pittman]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/insurance.html"><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/business+operations.html"><![CDATA[Business Operations]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/corporate+insurance.html"><![CDATA[Corporate Insurance]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Insurer's duty to defend gets some definition and refinement. (California)]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6661/is_199604/ai_n26583965]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Two 1995 California Supreme Court decisions helped provide some guidance as to the insurer's duty to defend in third-party and economic or business cases. The Montrose Chemical Corp v. Admiral Insurance Co decision held that all insurance policies in effect during the involved period were triggered and so loss and...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Research articles]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 1996 23:59:59 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/california+supreme+court.html"><![CDATA[California Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/cir.html"><![CDATA[Cir]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/insurance.html"><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[State to review awards. (California Supreme Court's review of an insurance bad faith case)]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5252/is_199601/ai_n20155673]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Punitive award at issue in bad faith case  SAN FRANCISCO - California courts may receive some long-awaited  guidance on punitive damages when the state Supreme Court reviews an  insurance bad faith case.  The eventual decision in West American Insurance CPunitive award at issue in bad faith...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Research articles]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 1996 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/california+supreme+court.html"><![CDATA[California Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/insurance.html"><![CDATA[insurance]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/insurance+company.html"><![CDATA[insurance company]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/punitive+damage.html"><![CDATA[punitive damage]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/.html"><![CDATA[]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Quackenbush hails state Supreme Court ruling]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1995_June_1/ai_16985483]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[SAN FRANCISCO--BUSINESS WIRE--June 1, 1995--Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush Thursday issued the following statement in response to the decision of the California Supreme Court in Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. vs. Superior Court (No. S031022), which held that state antitrust laws apply to the insurance industry: -0-"I am pleased that the Supreme...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Research articles]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jun 1995 23:59:59 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/antitrust.html"><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/business+wire.html"><![CDATA[Business Wire]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/california+supreme+court.html"><![CDATA[California Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/finance.html"><![CDATA[FINANCE]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/insurance.html"><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/.html"><![CDATA[]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Farmers Ins. Group to fight $183M Prop. 103 refund order. (Farmers Insurance Group)]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5249/is_199501/ai_n20015847]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Farmers Ins. Group said it will fight California Insurance  Commissioner John Garamendi's order to pay $183 million in  Proposition 103 refunds, claiming any rollback would be  unconstitutional.  Commissioner Garamendi, who leaves office Jan. 4, said Farmers  "has made it clear that they are unwilling to...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Research articles]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 1995 23:59:59 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/california+supreme+court.html"><![CDATA[California Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/finance.html"><![CDATA[FINANCE]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/insurance.html"><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/prop.html"><![CDATA[Prop]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/refund.html"><![CDATA[refund]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[National effect seen in 10 percent return ruling. (1988 California Proposition 103 case could hurt free enterprise)]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5249/is_199410/ai_n20025456]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[SEATTLE--The California Supreme Court's recent ruling imposing  a 10 percent rate of return on insurers represents "possibly the  greatest single perceptual change in the way America does business in 50  years," an industry leader said.    Gordon Stewart, president of the New York-based Insurance ...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Research articles]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 1994 23:59:59 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/california+supreme+court.html"><![CDATA[California Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/incentive.html"><![CDATA[incentive]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/insurance.html"><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Court denies accident benefit for drug overdose. (California Supreme Court)]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5557/is_199403/ai_n21978525]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[A lower court ruling that ordered Federal Kemper Life Assurance Co to pay a death benefit on a policyholder who perished after a fatal overdose of cocaine was overturned by the California Supreme Court. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling on the basis that a voluntary act in which a...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Research articles]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 1994 23:59:59 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/accident.html"><![CDATA[accident]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/benefit.html"><![CDATA[benefit]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/california+supreme+court.html"><![CDATA[California Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/finance.html"><![CDATA[FINANCE]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/insurance.html"><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/.html"><![CDATA[]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Calif. high court will rule on surety. (California Supreme Court, surety insurance)]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5249/is_199312/ai_n20051623]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[The California Supreme Court will be asked to decide whether to let  stand a law exempting surety insurance from major provisions of  Proposition 103.    The California Court of Appeal rule Dec. 8 that the law, AB 3798,  is invalid because it does not c...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Research articles]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Dec 1993 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/california+supreme+court.html"><![CDATA[California Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/insurance.html"><![CDATA[insurance]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/legislature.html"><![CDATA[Legislature]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/prop.html"><![CDATA[Prop]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/surety.html"><![CDATA[surety]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/.html"><![CDATA[]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Reinsurers hail decision on setoffs.]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5249/is_199212/ai_n20016528]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Reinsurers are hailing as a victory for themselves and consumers a  recent California Supreme Court decision allowing reinsurers to reduce  what they owed failed Mission Ins. Co. by the amount Mission owed them.    The Nov. 30 decision upheld a 1989 California Court of Appeal ...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Research articles]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:59:59 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/california.html"><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/california+supreme+court.html"><![CDATA[California Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/finance.html"><![CDATA[FINANCE]]></category>
		<category domain="http://resources.bnet.com/topic/insurance.html"><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
