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.
16 California opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Maryland Casualty Co.green2 sentences2020There are eight elements of an insurer’s cause of action for equitable subrogation: “[1] the insured suffered a loss for which the defendant is liable, either as the wrongdoer whose act or omission caused the loss or because the defendant is legally responsible to the insured for the loss caused by the wrongdoer; [2] the claimed loss was one for which the insurer was not primarily liable; [3] the insurer has compensated the insured in whole or in part for the same loss for which the defendant is primarily liable; [4] the insurer has paid the claim of its insured to protect its own interest and 2020Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 1292 (Fireman’s Fund).) “ ‘The essential elements of an insurer’s cause of action for equitable subrogation are as follows: [1] the insured suffered a loss for which the defendant is liable, either as the wrongdoer whose act or omission caused the loss or because the defendant is legally responsible to the insured for the loss caused by the wrongdoer; [2] the claimed loss was one for which the insurer was not primarily liable; [3] the insurer has compensated the insured in whole or in part for the same loss for which the defendant is pr | 7 | 11 |
State Farm General Insurance v. Wells Fargo Bankgreen2 sentences2015Balancing the Equities: The Interstate Fire Opinion Though easily stated in general terms, the element of balancing the equities lacks specificity in details. “‘[T]here is no facile formula for determining superiority of equities, for there is no formula by which to determine the existence or nonexistence of an equity except to the extent that certain familiar fact combinations have been repeatedly adjudged to create an equity in the surety or the third party. . . . ’” (State Farm, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1112 .) Nonetheless, Interstate Fire, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th 23 , provides a valuabl 2015The only element in issue here is No. 7—balancing the equities; 3 The eight elements are: “‘[1] the insured suffered a loss for which the defendant is liable, either as the wrongdoer whose act or omission caused the loss or because the defendant is legally responsible to the insured for the loss caused by the wrongdoer; [2] the claimed loss was one for which the insurer was not primarily liable; [3] the insurer has compensated the insured in whole or in part for the same loss for which the defendant is primarily liable; [4] the insurer has paid the claim of its insured to protect its own inter | 1 | 2 |
Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc.green1 sentence2021Paul’s motion for summary adjudication, determining that Vaca Valley Roofing, Inc. had a contractual duty to defend Pulte in the underlying litigation to the extent the homeowners made claims related to its scope of work. 3 The eight elements are: “ ‘[1] the insured suffered a loss for which the defendant is liable, either as the wrongdoer whose act or omission caused the loss or because the defendant is legally responsible to the insured for the loss caused by the wrongdoer; [2] the claimed loss was one for which the insurer was not primarily liable; [3] the insurer has compensated the insure | 1 | 1 |
Valley Crest Landscape Development, Inc. v. Mission Pools of Escondido, Inc.green1 sentence2020(Valley Crest Landscape Development, Inc. v. Mission Pools of Escondido, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 468, 482 (Valley Crest); City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1224, 1256 .) “ ‘ “The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. | 1 | 1 |
E. L. White, Inc. v. City of Huntington Beachgreen2 sentences2015White, Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach (1978) 21 Cal.3d 497, 506-507 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 579 P.2d 505 ].) 3 The eight elements are: “ ‘[1] the insured suffered a loss for which the defendant is liable, either as the wrongdoer whose act or omission caused the loss or because the defendant is legally responsible to the insured for the loss caused by the wrongdoer; [2] the claimed loss was one for which the insurer was not primarily liable; [3] the insurer has compensated the insured in whole or in part for the same loss for which the defendant is primarily liable; [4] the insurer has paid the 2015White, Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach (1978) 21 Cal.3d 497, 506-507 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 579 P.2d 505 ].) 3 The eight elements are: “ ‘[1] the insured suffered a loss for which the defendant is liable, either as the wrongdoer whose act or omission caused the loss or because the defendant is legally responsible to the insured for the loss caused by the wrongdoer; [2] the claimed loss was one for which the insurer was not primarily liable; [3] the insurer has compensated the insured in whole or in part for the same loss for which the defendant is primarily liable; [4] the insurer has paid the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Interstate Fire & Casualty Insurance v. Cleveland Wrecking Co.
green
2 sentences2020Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 1292 (Fireman’s Fund).) “ ‘The essential elements of an insurer’s cause of action for equitable subrogation are as follows: [1] the insured suffered a loss for which the defendant is liable, either as the wrongdoer whose act or omission caused the loss or because the defendant is legally responsible to the insured for the loss caused by the wrongdoer; [2] the claimed loss was one for which the insurer was not primarily liable; [3] the insurer has compensated the insured in whole or in part for the same loss for which the defendant is pr 2014Co. v. Cleveland Wrecking Co. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 23 , 31–32 (Interstate).) “ ‘The essential elements of an insurer’s cause of action for equitable subrogation are as follows: [1] the insured suffered a loss for which the defendant is liable, either as the wrongdoer whose act or omission caused the loss or because the defendant is legally responsible to the insured for the loss caused by the wrongdoer; [2] the claimed loss was one for which the insurer was not primarily liable; [3] the insurer has compensated the insured in whole or in part for the same loss for which the defendant is prima | 3 | 2014–2020 |
Transcontinental Insurance v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania
green
2 sentences2022Co. v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1305 .) (a) Primary Liability Federal argues Western is the only insurer that agreed to indemnify ACH for liability ACH assumed under an indemnity agreement. 2016Co. v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania, supra. 148 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1303 .) 4 Another case with similar facts is Doser v. Middlesex Mutual Ins. | 2 | 2016–2022 |
City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency
green
1 sentence2020(Valley Crest Landscape Development, Inc. v. Mission Pools of Escondido, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 468, 482 (Valley Crest); City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1224, 1256 .) “ ‘ “The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Wilshire Film Ventures, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015White, Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach (1978) 21 Cal.3d 497, 506-507 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 579 P.2d 505 ].) 3 The eight elements are: “ ‘[1] the insured suffered a loss for which the defendant is liable, either as the wrongdoer whose act or omission caused the loss or because the defendant is legally responsible to the insured for the loss caused by the wrongdoer; [2] the claimed loss was one for which the insurer was not primarily liable; [3] the insurer has compensated the insured in whole or in part for the same loss for which the defendant is primarily liable; [4] the insurer has paid the | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Herrick Corp. v. Canadian Ins. Co. of Cal.
green
1 sentence2011Co., supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at p. 759 .)]” (Fireman’s Fund, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1293-1295, fns. omitted, italics added by Fireman’s Fund.) The Essential Elements of a Subrogation Claim The Fireman’s Fund court identified the essential elements of an insurer’s cause of action for equitable subrogation: “(a) the insured suffered a loss for which the defendant is liable, either as the wrongdoer whose act or omission caused the loss or because the defendant is legally responsible to the insured for the loss caused by the wrongdoer; (b) the claimed loss was one for which the insurer was not | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.