|
Duty to Defend
|
|
Written by Jodi Swick
|
|
Friday, 02 November 2012 00:00 |
|
In Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. Swift Distribution, Inc. et al., No. BC442537 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2012), the California Second District Court of Appeal held that where an insured’s advertisement for a product made no express or implied disparaging statements towards another product, the insurer had no duty to defend the insured in a subsequent lawsuit under the policy’s personal and advertising injury provision.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Duty to Defend
|
|
Written by Raymond Tittmann
|
|
Monday, 16 July 2012 10:24 |
|
In Travelers Property Casualty Co. v. Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc., Case No. B232771 (Cal. App. July 13, 2012) (Second Appellate District), the California Court of Appeal held that conduct implied in the pleadings of the underlying claim, i.e. trade libel, is sufficient to trigger a duty to defend. The causes of action in the underlying complaint alleged damage to the claimant’s clothing brand by unauthorized mark-downs, which implied “disparagement.” Though the underlying complaint did not allege disparagement directly, the implication was sufficient to trigger a duty to defend under the policies’ advertising coverage.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Duty to Defend
|
|
Written by Jodi Swick
|
|
Friday, 04 November 2011 10:00 |
|
In Clark v. California Insurance Guarantee Association, Case No. G044171 (Cal. Ct. App., October 28) (Fourth Appellate District), the California Court of Appeal held that a plaintiff who secures a judgment cannot recover unpaid costs and interest on that judgment in a direct action against the California Insurance Guarantee Association. The Court of Appeal ruled that a third party judgment creditor is merely an incidental beneficiary, and unless the third party obtains an assignment by the insured of its rights under the insurance contract, the third party has no right to bring a claim upon a duty owed only to the insured (i.e., the duty to defend).
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Duty to Defend
|
|
Written by Jodi Swick
|
|
Thursday, 14 July 2011 13:51 |
|
In Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. (Case No. B224584, filed 6/10/11, certified for publication 7/11/11) the California Court of Appeal held that an insurer owes no duty to defend its insured against an action which alleges only equitable relief and civil penalties. The Second District Court of Appeal ruled that Travelers Property Casualty Co. owed no coverage to its insured, Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc. because the policy only covered damages resulting from bodily injury, not injunctive relief and civil penalties.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Duty to Defend
|
|
Written by Jodi Swick
|
|
Thursday, 07 July 2011 00:00 |
|
In Behnke v. State Farm Insurance Company (Case No. B223566, certified for publication 6/29/11), the California Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District) held that a policyholder's dispute relating to payment of Cumis counsel fees failed to state a cause of action against the insurer for fraud, breach of contract, bad faith or punitive damages.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
