Resources
BNET Resources
- sort by:
- Relevance
- Date
- Popularity
- PREVIOUS KEY DECISIONS CITED IN STRINGFELLOW CASE.(News)(Brief article)
- 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,...
- Research articles 2007-01-29
- California Supreme Court refuses to give literal effect to jewelers' block policy language limiting coverage
- 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...
- Research articles 2004-09-01
- Policyholder may receive coverage despite lost liability policies so long as other proof is sufficient to demonstrate existence of insurance
- 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,...
- Research articles 2003-03-01
- Insurers not obligated to defend orders: court. (California Supreme Court rules that insurers are not obligated to defend policyholders from cleanups ordered by government)
- LOS ANGELES - Insurers do not have a duty to defend policyholders against government-ordered environmental cleanups, the California Supreme Court has ruled. In a 4-3 decision, the court ruled that insurers must defend commercial general liability poliLOS ANGELES - Insurers do not have a duty to...
- Research articles 1998-08-10
- Court puts limits on cleanup cover; Indemnity under CGL policy at issue.(Statistical Data Included)
- SAN FRANCISCO--A California Supreme Court ruling could increase litigation as policyholders find court-ordered damages against them are now a prerequisite for obtaining pollution cleanup coverage under commercial general liability policies, policyhol SAN FRANCISCO--A California Supreme Court ruling could increase litigation as policyholders find court-ordered damages...
- Research articles 2001-02-12
- Paying part of legal tab: policyholder required to repay part of defense costs: Court. (California Supreme Court)
- LOS ANGELES - In a potentially costly defeat for policyholders facing liability lawsuits, the California Supreme Court has ruled that general liability insurers' duty to defend policyholders does not mean insurers are responsible for the entire defenseLOS ANGELES - In a potentially costly defeat for policyholders facing...
- Research articles 1997-08-04
Additional Resources
- 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
- 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...
- Research articles 2004-09-01
- HO policy covers herpes case. (homeowners policy)
- HO Policy Covers Herpes Case The California Supreme Court has let stand an appellate court ruling that a policyholder sued for infecting a woman with herpes is insured for defense costs and may be covered for damages under his homeowners policy. ...
- Research articles 1990-07-02
- << Previous
- page 1 of 1
- Next >>
Premier Vendor Content Whitepapers, webcasts & resources from our Power Center Sponsors
