Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
19 California opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
CGU Insurance v. Tyson Associatesgreen2 sentences2013(E.D.Pa. 2001) 140 F.Supp.2d 415, 421 [public policy precluding insurance coverage for willful criminal acts or for intentional torts “is not appropriately considered during the duty to defend analysis,” particularly where insureds “have not been found guilty of any 41 wrongdoing”].) The law punishes individuals convicted of crimes, not those accused of crimes. 2013(E.D.Pa. 2001) 140 F.Supp.2d 415, 421 [public policy precluding insurance coverage for wilful criminal acts or for intentional torts “is not appropriately considered during the duty to defend analysis,” particularly where insureds “have not been found guilty of any wrongdoing”].) The law punishes individuals convicted of crimes, not those accused of crimes. *1423 Finally, Mt. | 2 | 2 |
Hogan v. Midland National Insurancegreen2 sentences2002Co. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 553, 563 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 153 , 476 P.2d 825 ], italics added.) Contrawise, “[i]f an insurance policy provides no potential basis for coverage, the insurer is under no duty to defend an action against the insured.” (Waller v. Truck Ins. 2002Co. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 553, 563 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 153 , 476 P.2d 825 ], italics added.) Contrawise, “[i]f an insurance policy provides no potential basis for coverage, the insurer is under no duty to defend an action against the insured.” (Waller v. Truck Ins. | 2 | 2 |
Foster-Gardner, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurancegreen2 sentences2007The pre-1986 CGL policies examined in Foster-Gardner, with minor nonmaterial differences, stated, "`the company shall have the right and duty to defend any suit against the insured seeking damages on account of such bodily injury or property damage, ... and may make such investigation and settlement of any claim or suit as it deems expedient....'" ( Id. at p. 863, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 107 , 959 P.2d 265 .) The terms "suit" and "claim" were not defined in the policies. ( Id. at p. 864, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 107 , 959 P.2d 265 .) [17] Utilizing a "`literal meaning' approach," the court concluded that the wor 2007The pre-1986 CGL policies examined in Foster-Gardner, with minor nonmaterial differences, stated, "`the company shall have the right and duty to defend any suit against the insured seeking damages on account of such bodily injury or property damage, ... and may make such investigation and settlement of any claim or suit as it deems expedient....'" ( Id. at p. 863, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 107 , 959 P.2d 265 .) The terms "suit" and "claim" were not defined in the policies. ( Id. at p. 864, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 107 , 959 P.2d 265 .) [17] Utilizing a "`literal meaning' approach," the court concluded that the wor | 1 | 5 |
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Countygreen2 sentences2007The pre-1986 CGL policies examined in Foster-Gardner, with minor nonmaterial differences, stated, "`the company shall have the right and duty to defend any suit against the insured seeking damages on account of such bodily injury or property damage, ... and may make such investigation and settlement of any claim or suit as it deems expedient....'" ( Id. at p. 863, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 107 , 959 P.2d 265 .) The terms "suit" and "claim" were not defined in the policies. ( Id. at p. 864, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 107 , 959 P.2d 265 .) [17] Utilizing a "`literal meaning' approach," the court concluded that the wor 2007The pre-1986 CGL policies examined in Foster-Gardner, with minor nonmaterial differences, stated, "`the company shall have the right and duty to defend any suit against the insured seeking damages on account of such bodily injury or property damage, ... and may make such investigation and settlement of any claim or suit as it deems expedient....'" ( Id. at p. 863, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 107 , 959 P.2d 265 .) The terms "suit" and "claim" were not defined in the policies. ( Id. at p. 864, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 107 , 959 P.2d 265 .) [17] Utilizing a "`literal meaning' approach," the court concluded that the wor | 1 | 2 |
cluster 744187green1 sentence2013Hawley points to the statement in the dissenting opinion in Bodell that “no California court has ever construed an insurance policy to cover criminal defenses.” (Bodell, supra, 119 F.3d at p. 1421 (dis. opn. of Kozinski, J.).) No California court, however, has ever construed an insurance policy like this one not to cover criminal defenses, nor has any California court ever held that it is against public policy for an insurer to agree to provide a defense to criminal charges. | 1 | 1 |
Ortega Rock Quarry v. Golden Eagle Insurancegreen2 sentences2010Corp. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 969, 977 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 517 ].) Insurers have the more difficult burden of proving that the underlying claim cannot fall within policy coverage. 2010Corp. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 969, 977 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 517 ].) Insurers have the more difficult burden of proving that the underlying claim cannot fall within policy coverage. | 1 | 1 |
La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club, Inc. v. Industrial Indemnity Co.green2 sentences2010(Ibid.; see La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club, Inc. v. Industrial Indemnity Co. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 27, 37 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 100 , 884 P.2d 1048 ].) In addition, to prevail on a duty to defend claim, an insured need “ ‘ “only show that the underlying claim may fall within policy coverage (Ortega Rock Quarry v. Golden Eagle Ins. 2010(Ibid.; see La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club, Inc. v. Industrial Indemnity Co. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 27, 37 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 100 , 884 P.2d 1048 ].) In addition, to prevail on a duty to defend claim, an insured need “ ‘ “only show that the underlying claim may fall within policy coverage (Ortega Rock Quarry v. Golden Eagle Ins. | 1 | 1 |
AIU Insurance v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2010Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 807, 822 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 820 , 799 P.2d 1253 ] ( AIU ).) Particularly, "[i]n the insurance context, . . . ambiguities [are resolved] in favor of coverage" so as to protect the insured's reasonable expectation of coverage. ( Ibid.; see La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club, Inc. v. Industrial Indemnity Co. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 27, 37 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 100 , 884 P.2d 1048 ].) (3) In addition, to prevail on a duty to defend claim, an insured need "`"only show that the underlying claim may fall within policy coverage. . . ."'" ( Ortega Rock Quarry v. Golden Eagle Ins. 2010Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 807, 822 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 820 , 799 P.2d 1253 ] ( AIU ).) Particularly, "[i]n the insurance context, . . . ambiguities [are resolved] in favor of coverage" so as to protect the insured's reasonable expectation of coverage. ( Ibid.; see La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club, Inc. v. Industrial Indemnity Co. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 27, 37 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 100 , 884 P.2d 1048 ].) (3) In addition, to prevail on a duty to defend claim, an insured need "`"only show that the underlying claim may fall within policy coverage. . . ."'" ( Ortega Rock Quarry v. Golden Eagle Ins. | 1 | 1 |
CDM Investors v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co.green2 sentences2007The pre-1986 CGL policies examined in Foster-Gardner, with minor nonmaterial differences, stated, "`the company shall have the right and duty to defend any suit against the insured seeking damages on account of such bodily injury or property damage, ... and may make such investigation and settlement of any claim or suit as it deems expedient....'" ( Id. at p. 863, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 107 , 959 P.2d 265 .) The terms "suit" and "claim" were not defined in the policies. ( Id. at p. 864, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 107 , 959 P.2d 265 .) [17] Utilizing a "`literal meaning' approach," the court concluded that the wor 2007The pre-1986 CGL policies examined in Foster-Gardner, with minor nonmaterial differences, stated, "`the company shall have the right and duty to defend any suit against the insured seeking damages on account of such bodily injury or property damage, ... and may make such investigation and settlement of any claim or suit as it deems expedient....'" ( Id. at p. 863, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 107 , 959 P.2d 265 .) The terms "suit" and "claim" were not defined in the policies. ( Id. at p. 864, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 107 , 959 P.2d 265 .) [17] Utilizing a "`literal meaning' approach," the court concluded that the wor | 1 | 1 |
Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Barbara B.green2 sentences2002Co. v. Barbara B. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1076, 1081 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 210 , 846 P.2d 792 ].) “The rule is settled that an insurer is under a duty to defend a claim whenever the allegations of a complaint would support a recovery upon a risk covered by the policy.” (Hogan v. Midland National Ins. 2002Co. v. Barbara B. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1076, 1081 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 210 , 846 P.2d 792 ].) “The rule is settled that an insurer is under a duty to defend a claim whenever the allegations of a complaint would support a recovery upon a risk covered by the policy.” (Hogan v. Midland National Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co.green2 sentences1993In Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263, 275-277 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 419 P.2d 168 ], the court held that an insurer has a duty to defend a claim against its insured which potentially seeks damages within the coverage of the policy. 1993In Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263, 275-277 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 419 P.2d 168 ], the court held that an insurer has a duty to defend a claim against its insured which potentially seeks damages within the coverage of the policy. | 1 | 1 |
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of Londongreen2 sentences1992(Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Certain Underwriters (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 791, 800 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 47 ].) We will proceed on this assumption since we must liberally construe the complaint in appellants’ favor in reviewing a ruling on demurrer. (4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Pleading, § 396, p. 446.) On proof of the insurer’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the insured may recover all damages proximately caused by the breach. 1992(Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Certain Underwriters (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 791, 800 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 47 ].) We will proceed on this assumption since we must liberally construe the complaint in appellants’ favor in reviewing a ruling on demurrer. (4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Pleading, § 396, p. 446.) On proof of the insurer’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the insured may recover all damages proximately caused by the breach. | 1 | 1 |
Central Bank v. Transamerica Title Insurancegreen2 sentences1991Co. (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 859, 869 [ 149 Cal.Rptr. 822 ] {Central Bank), in holding that an action for breach of the duty to defend a claim under a title insurance policy accrues when tender of the defense is refused. 1991Co. (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 859, 869 [ 149 Cal.Rptr. 822 ] {Central Bank), in holding that an action for breach of the duty to defend a claim under a title insurance policy accrues when tender of the defense is refused. | 1 | 1 |
Eichler Homes, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, Londongreen2 sentences1970(See, e.g., Blackfield v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 271, 274 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 838 ]; Eichler Homes, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 532, 538 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 843 ].) In these cases, however, various theories of recovery were asserted by the plaintiff, only one or more of which were within the coverage of the policy. 1970(See, e.g., Blackfield v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 271, 274 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 838 ]; Eichler Homes, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 532, 538 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 843 ].) In these cases, however, various theories of recovery were asserted by the plaintiff, only one or more of which were within the coverage of the policy. | 1 | 1 |
Blackfield v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, Londongreen2 sentences1970(See, e.g., Blackfield v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 271, 274 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 838 ]; Eichler Homes, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 532, 538 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 843 ].) In these cases, however, various theories of recovery were asserted by the plaintiff, only one or more of which were within the coverage of the policy. 1970(See, e.g., Blackfield v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 271, 274 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 838 ]; Eichler Homes, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 532, 538 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 843 ].) In these cases, however, various theories of recovery were asserted by the plaintiff, only one or more of which were within the coverage of the policy. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Weather Shield Mfg., Inc.
green
2 sentences2026Based on Civil Code section 2778, subdivision 4, as interpreted in Crawford v. Weather Shield Mfg., Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 541 (Crawford) and other case law, the City’s duty to defend arose when the District tendered its defense of the student’s tort action because the student’s complaint alleged 2. facts that, at least potentially, would give rise to a duty to indemnify. 2026Based on Civil Code section 2778, subdivision 4, as interpreted in Crawford v. Weather Shield Mfg., Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 541 (Crawford) and other case law, the City’s duty to defend arose when the District tendered its defense of the student’s tort action because the student’s complaint alleged 2. facts that, at least potentially, would give rise to a duty to indemnify. | 2 | 2026–2026 |
Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2021Co. v. Frake (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 568, 577 .) A duty to defend a claim due to a potential for coverage under the policy may arise (a) from the nature of the allegations in the third party complaint, and also (b) from “facts known to the insurer and extrinsic to the third party complaint.” (Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 6 Cal.4th 287, 296 .) Consequently, “an insurer has a duty to defend an insured if it becomes aware of, or if the third party lawsuit pleads, facts giving rise to the potential for coverage under the insuring agreement.” (Waller v. Truck Ins. 2021Co. v. Frake (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 568, 577 .) A duty to defend a claim due to a potential for coverage under the policy may arise (a) from the nature of the allegations in the third party complaint, and also (b) from “facts known to the insurer and extrinsic to the third party complaint.” (Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 6 Cal.4th 287, 296 .) Consequently, “an insurer has a duty to defend an insured if it becomes aware of, or if the third party lawsuit pleads, facts giving rise to the potential for coverage under the insuring agreement.” (Waller v. Truck Ins. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Waller v. Truck Insurance Exchange, Inc.
green
1 sentence2021Exchange, Inc. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1, 19 .) As summarized by the Supreme Court in Hartford Casualty Ins. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
American Motorists Insurance v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2021(Id. at p. 869.) In that prior unpublished opinion, the court had “held that the trial court’s resolution of the duty to defend issues by means of a summary adjudication order later enhanced by a second order directing compliance with the first order were together appealable because ‘nothing further remained to be litigated in this action with respect to the duty to defend.’” (Id. at p. 873, italics added.) The court determined that “by ‘ordering the immediate payment of defense costs, the court below in effect severed the duty to defend from the remaining issues.’” (Ibid.) American Motorists, 2021(Id. at p. 869.) In that prior unpublished opinion, the court had “held that the trial court’s resolution of the duty to defend issues by means of a summary adjudication order later enhanced by a second order directing compliance with the first order were together appealable because ‘nothing further remained to be litigated in this action with respect to the duty to defend.’” (Id. at p. 873, italics added.) The court determined that “by ‘ordering the immediate payment of defense costs, the court below in effect severed the duty to defend from the remaining issues.’” (Ibid.) American Motorists, | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State Farm General Insurance v. Frake
green
1 sentence2021Co. v. Frake (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 568, 577 .) A duty to defend a claim due to a potential for coverage under the policy may arise (a) from the nature of the allegations in the third party complaint, and also (b) from “facts known to the insurer and extrinsic to the third party complaint.” (Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 6 Cal.4th 287, 296 .) Consequently, “an insurer has a duty to defend an insured if it becomes aware of, or if the third party lawsuit pleads, facts giving rise to the potential for coverage under the insuring agreement.” (Waller v. Truck Ins. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Heppler v. J.M. Peters Co.
green
1 sentence2008For a number of reasons, the court concluded that the language of the subcontract triggered Mueller’s indemnity obligation only if Mueller itself was found negligent. ( Heppler, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th 1265, 1275-1281 .) 9 However, the plaintiffs in Heppler did not contend that, even if the indemnity clause in Mueller’s subcontract was triggered only by Mueller’s actual negligence, the duty-to-defend clause applied more broadly. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.