Insurance Caselaw Roundup (7/15/08)
Tuesday, July 15, 2008 at 09:56AM The following is a list of other recent insurance-related opinions issued in California this year:
Triggering of Section 11580.2 UM Coverage: Wedmeyer v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 160 Cal.App.4th 1297 (2nd App. Dist., March 13, 2008) (holding that underinsured motorist coverage under Ins. Code § 11580.2 kicks in upon exhaustion of tortfeasor’s automobile liability policies only and does not require exhaustion of other liability policies of tortfeasor). (Opinion here.)
Triggering of Excess Policy Coverage: Qualcomm, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 161 Cal.App.4th 184 (4th App. Dist., March, 25, 2008) (concluding that excess policy was not triggered as a matter of law, when insured settled with primary insurer for less than the limits of primary policy and absorbed the gap between the settlement amount and the primary policy limit). (Opinion here.)
Claims of Sexual Assault and False Imprisonment Not Covered as "Accident": Lyons v. Fire Ins. Exchange, 161 Cal.App.4th 880 (2nd App. Dist., March 7, 2008) (affirming that insurer had no duty to defend claims of sexual assault and false imprisonment against insured because such claims are not “accidents” within the policy’s “accident” limitation). (Opinion here.)
Application of "Cross-Suits" Exclusion: Great Western Drywall, Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 161 Cal.App.4th 1033 (4th App. Dist., March 12, 2008) (holding a “cross-suits” exclusion in a commercial general liability policy, where both the subcontractor and general contractor were named insureds, barred coverage for subcontractor’s defense against general contractor’s claims of breach of contract, negligence, account stated and money had and received.). (Opinion here.)
Subcontractor Insurance Coverage: Monticello Ins. Co. v. Essex Ins. Co., 162 Cal.App.4th 1376 (2nd App. Dist., April 28, 2008) (holding that subcontractor’s insurer had no duty to defend additional insured general contractor in construction defect action, where general contractor failed to show that underlying action involved covered property damage caused by the name insured subcontractor). (Opinion here.)
Intervention in Coverage Action: Royal Indem. Co. v. United Enterprises, Inc., 162 Cal.App.4th 194 (4th App. Dist., April 23, 2008) (affirming trial court’s order denying property owner’s attempt to intervene in insurance coverage action between preceding property owner and its carriers regarding coverage for environmental contamination caused by preceding property owner.) (Opinion here.)
[Please note that this post does not constitute legal advice and provides only the author's own snapshot view of the cited opinion. No warranties are made as to the accuracy of the author's view of the opinion or as to its legal effect (including, but not limited to, whether it may be subsequently modified, depublished, and/or overruled). The import and applicability of a cited opinion to an actual matter depends upon the specific facts presented and should be reviewed by an attorney.]
[Submitted by Guest Contributor: Peter Sindhuphak of Barger & Wolen LLP.]
Email Article to Friend