Insurance Policy Providing Coverage for Damages Does Not Entitle Insurer to Defense for Injunctive-Only Suit. In our October 5, 2013 post, we discussed San Miguel Community Assn. v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., Case No. G047738 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 1, 2013), an unpublished decision holding that an insured under a policy
Second District, Division 8 Is Not Going To Be First Court To So Hold to the Contrary. In Aguilar v. Gostischef, Case No. B238853 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Oct. 13, 2013) (published), a plaintiff losing a leg in an automobile accident made pre-trial offers to attempt to accept defendant’s insured’s $100,000 policy limits
Local Santa Ana Appellate Court So Holds. Acting Presiding Justice Rylaarsdam, in San Miguel Community Assn. v. State Farm General Ins. Co., Case No. G047738 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 1, 2013) (unpublished) on behalf of a 3-0 panel, framed the issue in this case and answered it as follows: “Question: When
2/7 DCA So Rules In Published Decision. Swanson v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., Case No. B240016 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 23, 2013) (published) addressed this narrow but important issue for California insurance coverage practitioners: Does an insurer withdrawing all reservations of right and coverage defenses have to continue paying insured’s Cumis
J.R. Marketing Now Published. In our May 20, 2013 post, we discussed J.R.Marketing, LLC v. Hartford Cas. Ins., a May 17, 2013 unpublished decision finding that a Cumis-breaching carrier could not sue to recoup fees paid already to independent counsel. We can now report that this decision was certified for publication on June
Holding is Narrow, Not Barring Fraudulent Billing Suit of the Right Nature. J.R. Marketing, L.L.C. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., Case No. A133750 (1st Dist., Div. 3 May 17, 2013) (unpublished) is an interesting case for insurance practitioners following our blog. There, an insurance carrier was found to have breached a duty
Often times, the abuse of discretion standard of review dictates results in cases involving fee or fee-shifting cases. That was the situation in Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau v. Rick Concrete Constr. Co., Case No. D058134 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 8, 2013) (unpublished). There, the insured requested $185,915 in Brandt fees,
The pragmatic end result of this next appellate decision is hard to argue with; after all, I think most of us (attorneys, judges, and the public) would think that a filing of an acknowledgment of satisfaction means just that–finito, case ended, no more exposure. In Essex Ins. Co. v. Professional Building Contractors,
U.S. District Judge So Rules in N.D. Illinois Decision. We thank our friends at NALFA for calling the next decision to our attention (as posted on in their Attorney Fee Blog). In Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., USDC, N.D. Ill. Case No. 09 C 7063 (June 10, 2012),
Lack of Allocation Was Fatal for Brandt and RFA Issues. Insured prevailed in a suit against auto insurer for making repairs rather than declaring the car a total loss. However, insured was denied requested fees of $500,000 ($250,000 plus a 2 multiplier) even though claiming them under one of three theories: (1) California’s
