98 California opinions name it 3 courts 1936–2025 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Blanchard v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.green2 sentences2018Exchange (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 999 , 1006, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 882 .) Whether independent counsel is required "depends upon the nature of the coverage issue, as it relates to the issues in the *798 underlying case." ( Blanchard v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co . (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 345 , 350, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 884 .) "There must ... be evidence that 'the outcome of [the] coverage issue can be controlled by counsel first retained by the insurer for the defense of the [underlying] claim.' " ( Gafcon, Inc. v. Ponsor & Associates (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1388 , 1421, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 392 .) " 'It is only when 2018Exchange (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 999 , 1006, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 882 .) Whether independent counsel is required "depends upon the nature of the coverage issue, as it relates to the issues in the *798 underlying case." ( Blanchard v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co . (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 345 , 350, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 884 .) "There must ... be evidence that 'the outcome of [the] coverage issue can be controlled by counsel first retained by the insurer for the defense of the [underlying] claim.' " ( Gafcon, Inc. v. Ponsor & Associates (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1388 , 1421, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 392 .) " 'It is only when | 2 | 8 |
Gafcon, Inc. v. Ponsor & Associatesgreen2 sentences2018Exchange (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 999 , 1006, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 882 .) Whether independent counsel is required "depends upon the nature of the coverage issue, as it relates to the issues in the *798 underlying case." ( Blanchard v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co . (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 345 , 350, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 884 .) "There must ... be evidence that 'the outcome of [the] coverage issue can be controlled by counsel first retained by the insurer for the defense of the [underlying] claim.' " ( Gafcon, Inc. v. Ponsor & Associates (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1388 , 1421, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 392 .) " 'It is only when 2018Exchange (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 999 , 1006, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 882 .) Whether independent counsel is required "depends upon the nature of the coverage issue, as it relates to the issues in the *798 underlying case." ( Blanchard v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co . (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 345 , 350, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 884 .) "There must ... be evidence that 'the outcome of [the] coverage issue can be controlled by counsel first retained by the insurer for the defense of the [underlying] claim.' " ( Gafcon, Inc. v. Ponsor & Associates (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1388 , 1421, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 392 .) " 'It is only when | 2 | 4 |
Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2006Co. v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 782, 787 [ 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 43 ] [“When the insurer provides a defense to its insured, the insured has no right to interfere with the insurer’s control of the defense, and a stipulated judgment between the insured and the injured claimant, without the consent of the insurer, is ineffective to impose liability upon the insurer”]; accord, Low v. Golden Eagle Ins. 2006Co. v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 782, 787 [ 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 43 ] [“When the insurer provides a defense to its insured, the insured has no right to interfere with the insurer’s control of the defense, and a stipulated judgment between the insured and the injured claimant, without the consent of the insurer, is ineffective to impose liability upon the insurer”]; accord, Low v. Golden Eagle Ins. | 2 | 3 |
Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1998In other words, the insured need only show that the underlying claim may fall within policy coverage; the insurer must prove it cannot.” (Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 300 , original italics.) If the facts alleged by the third party or known to the insurer create any potential for indemnity under the policy, the insurer must provide a defense even though noncovered acts are also alleged by the third party action. 1995(Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court (1993) 6 Cal.4th 287, 295 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467 , 861 P.2d 1153 ].) Under these circumstances, an insurer may provide a defense under a reservation of rights, agreeing to defend, but promising to indemnify only for conduct covered by the policy. | 2 | 3 |
Buss v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1998Perhaps we are missing something—the issue has, after all, not been briefed—but if someone with a solvent insurer is sued and loses, he or she must pay any part of the judgment which is not covered by the policy, and may even be required to reimburse the insurer for defense costs that “are not even potentially covered.” (See generally, Buss v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 35, 50 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 366 , 939 P.2d 766 ].) Why should someone with an insolvent insurer get a better deal and not be required to pay anything—even if not otherwise covered by the original insurance policy—because CIGA 1998Perhaps we are missing something—the issue has, after all, not been briefed—but if someone with a solvent insurer is sued and loses, he or she must pay any part of the judgment which is not covered by the policy, and may even be required to reimburse the insurer for defense costs that “are not even potentially covered.” (See generally, Buss v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 35, 50 [ 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 366 , 939 P.2d 766 ].) Why should someone with an insolvent insurer get a better deal and not be required to pay anything—even if not otherwise covered by the original insurance policy—because CIGA | 2 | 2 |
Dowling v. Zimmermangreen2 sentences2002(Id. at p. 843; Dowling v. Zimmerman (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1422 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 174 ]; Joseph A. Saunders, P.C. v. Weissburg & Aronson (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 869, 875 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 405 ].) Where the insurer provides a defense for a party, the realities of the insurer’s role in litigation dictate that the insurer be treated as an authorized party for purposes of the litigation privilege. 2002(Id. at p. 843; Dowling v. Zimmerman (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1422 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 174 ]; Joseph A. Saunders, P.C. v. Weissburg & Aronson (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 869, 875 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 405 ].) Where the insurer provides a defense for a party, the realities of the insurer’s role in litigation dictate that the insurer be treated as an authorized party for purposes of the litigation privilege. | 2 | 2 |
Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport Indemnity Co.green2 sentences2008(Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport Indemnity Co. (1997) 17 Cal.4th 38, 57-58 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 118 , 948 P.2d 909 ]; Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich v. Vigilant Insurance Co. (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1189-1190 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 475 ] (Gray Cary).) Where an insurer provides a defense under a reservation of rights, however, a conflict of interest may arise between the insurer and its insured. ( Cumis, supra, 162 Cal.App.3d at pp. 364-365.) In such a case, the insurer has a duty to provide its insured with independent counsel of the insured’s choosing (Cumis counsel). 2008(Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport Indemnity Co. (1997) 17 Cal.4th 38, 57-58 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 118 , 948 P.2d 909 ]; Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich v. Vigilant Insurance Co. (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1189-1190 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 475 ] (Gray Cary).) Where an insurer provides a defense under a reservation of rights, however, a conflict of interest may arise between the insurer and its insured. ( Cumis, supra, 162 Cal.App.3d at pp. 364-365.) In such a case, the insurer has a duty to provide its insured with independent counsel of the insured’s choosing (Cumis counsel). | 2 | 2 |
Zephyr Park, Ltd. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1990(See also Zephyr Park v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 833, 836 [ 262 Cal.Rptr. 106 ].) The court also determined that in “fairness to the substantial number of plaintiffs who have already initiated their suits in reliance on Royal Globe,'' its decision in Moradi-Shalal “will not apply to those cases seeking relief under section 790.03 filed before our decision here becomes final.” ( 46 Cal.3d 287, 305 ; see also Beatty v. State Farm Mut. 1990(See also Zephyr Park v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 833, 836 [ 262 Cal.Rptr. 106 ].) The court also determined that in “fairness to the substantial number of plaintiffs who have already initiated their suits in reliance on Royal Globe,'' its decision in Moradi-Shalal “will not apply to those cases seeking relief under section 790.03 filed before our decision here becomes final.” ( 46 Cal.3d 287, 305 ; see also Beatty v. State Farm Mut. | 2 | 2 |
Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co.green2 sentences1986Co. v. Flynt (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 538, 548 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 296 ].) However, even where the duty exists in its broadest form and the insurer must provide a defense to false, groundless or fraudulent actions, such a contract provision “does not extend the obligation to defend without limits; it includes only defense to those actions of the nature and kind covered by the policy.” (Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263, 274 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 419 P.2d 168 ]; Williamson & Vollmer Engineering, Inc. v. Sequoia Ins. 1986Co. v. Flynt (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 538, 548 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 296 ].) However, even where the duty exists in its broadest form and the insurer must provide a defense to false, groundless or fraudulent actions, such a contract provision “does not extend the obligation to defend without limits; it includes only defense to those actions of the nature and kind covered by the policy.” (Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263, 274 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 419 P.2d 168 ]; Williamson & Vollmer Engineering, Inc. v. Sequoia Ins. | 2 | 2 |
Dynamic Concepts, Inc. v. Truck Insurance Exchangegreen2 sentences2018Exchange (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 999 , 1006, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 882 .) Whether independent counsel is required "depends upon the nature of the coverage issue, as it relates to the issues in the *798 underlying case." ( Blanchard v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co . (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 345 , 350, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 884 .) "There must ... be evidence that 'the outcome of [the] coverage issue can be controlled by counsel first retained by the insurer for the defense of the [underlying] claim.' " ( Gafcon, Inc. v. Ponsor & Associates (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1388 , 1421, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 392 .) " 'It is only when 2018Exchange (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 999 , 1006, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 882 .) Whether independent counsel is required "depends upon the nature of the coverage issue, as it relates to the issues in the *798 underlying case." ( Blanchard v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co . (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 345 , 350, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 884 .) "There must ... be evidence that 'the outcome of [the] coverage issue can be controlled by counsel first retained by the insurer for the defense of the [underlying] claim.' " ( Gafcon, Inc. v. Ponsor & Associates (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1388 , 1421, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 392 .) " 'It is only when | 1 | 5 |
San Diego Navy Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Societyred2 sentences2004Co. (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 858, 882 , 110 Cal.Rptr. 511 .) Where, as here, an insurer provides a defense under a reservation of rights, a conflict of interest may arise between the insurer and its insured, providing the insured with the right to demand independent counsel. ( Cumis, supra, 162 Cal.App.3d at p. 364 , 208 Cal.Rptr. 494 .) In 1987 the Legislature codified the Cumis decision by enacting section 2860. 2004Co. (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 858, 882 , 110 Cal.Rptr. 511 .) Where, as here, an insurer provides a defense under a reservation of rights, a conflict of interest may arise between the insurer and its insured, providing the insured with the right to demand independent counsel. ( Cumis, supra, 162 Cal.App.3d at p. 364 , 208 Cal.Rptr. 494 .) In 1987 the Legislature codified the Cumis decision by enacting section 2860. | 1 | 5 |
Royal Globe Insurance v. Superior Courtred2 sentences1990Co. v. Superior Court (1979) 23 Cal.3d 880 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 842 , 592 P.2d 329 ] (hereafter Royal Globe), to hold that a private civil cause of action is not available against an insurer for a violation of section 790.03, subdivision (h). 1990Co. v. Superior Court (1979) 23 Cal.3d 880 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 842 , 592 P.2d 329 ] (hereafter Royal Globe), to hold that a private civil cause of action is not available against an insurer for a violation of section 790.03, subdivision (h). | 1 | 3 |
Williams v. Transport Indemnity Co.green2 sentences1985Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 128 Cal. App.3d 711, 714 .) In Williams v. Transport Indemnity Co., supra, 157 Cal. App.3d 953 , plaintiff made the same argument as appellant herein, i.e., initiation of legal action resulting in final determination of liability is not a condition precedent to maintenance of action against the insurer for violation of section 790.03, subdivision (h). 1985Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 128 Cal.App.3d 711, 714 .) In Williams v. Transport Indemnity Co., supra, 157 Cal.App.3d 953 , plaintiff made the same argument as appellant herein, i.e., initiation of legal action resulting in final determination of liability is not a condition precedent to maintenance of action against the insurer for violation of section 790.03, subdivision (h). | 1 | 3 |
Lehto v. Allstate Insurancegreen2 sentences2016Co. (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 60, 73 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 814 ], in which the appellate court rejected the argument the insurer should have attempted to settle the case without obtaining a full set of releases from the injured parties, holding that, “by offering the policy limits in exchange for a release, the insurer has done all within its power to effect a settlement.” Neither case stands for the proposition asserted by Mercury that, regardless of any other circumstances, a timely policy limits settlement offer insulates an insurer from a claim of bad faith. 2016Co. (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 60, 73 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 814 ], in which the appellate court rejected the argument the insurer should have attempted to settle the case without obtaining a full set of releases from the injured parties, holding that, “by offering the policy limits in exchange for a release, the insurer has done all within its power to effect a settlement.” Neither case stands for the proposition asserted by Mercury that, regardless of any other circumstances, a timely policy limits settlement offer insulates an insurer from a claim of bad faith. | 1 | 2 |
Devin v. United Services Automobile Ass'ngreen2 sentences2006The insurer declined to provide a defense to the litigation and the sellers filed a bad faith action against the insurer. ( Id. at pp. 1153-1155, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 263 .) The *820 trial court granted nonsuit in favor of the insurer and the appellate court affirmed. ( Id. at pp. 1155, 1162, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 263 .) The homeowners policy stated that the insurer would provide a defense if a suit was brought against the insured "`for damages because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an occurrence to which this coverage applies . . . .'" ( Devin, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1153-1154, 8 Cal.Rpt 2006The insurer declined to provide a defense to the litigation and the sellers filed a bad faith action against the insurer. ( Id. at pp. 1153-1155, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 263 .) The *820 trial court granted nonsuit in favor of the insurer and the appellate court affirmed. ( Id. at pp. 1155, 1162, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 263 .) The homeowners policy stated that the insurer would provide a defense if a suit was brought against the insured "`for damages because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an occurrence to which this coverage applies . . . .'" ( Devin, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1153-1154, 8 Cal.Rpt | 1 | 2 |
Merritt v. Reserve Insurancegreen2 sentences2004Co. (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 858, 882 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 511 ].) Where, as here, an insurer provides a defense under a reservation of rights, a conflict of interest may arise between the insurer and its insured, providing the insured with the right to demand independent counsel. 2004Co. (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 858, 882 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 511 ].) Where, as here, an insurer provides a defense under a reservation of rights, a conflict of interest may arise between the insurer and its insured, providing the insured with the right to demand independent counsel. | 1 | 2 |
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2001Exchange v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 985, 994 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 529 ]; Foremost Ins. 2001Exchange v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 985, 994 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 529 ]; Foremost Ins. | 1 | 2 |
Neff v. New York Life Insurancegreen2 sentences1956Co., 30 Cal.2d 165, 172-173 [ 180 P.2d 900 , 171 A.L.R. 563 ], the court said: “It is a matter of common knowledge that there are often differences of opinion concerning liability under insurance policies and no mere denial of liability, even though it be alleged to have been made through fraud or mistake, should be held sufficient, without more, to deprive the insurer of its privilege of having the disputed liability litigated within the period prescribed by the statute of limitations.” The finding of the trial court that the defendant insurance company was not estopped to assert that the act 1956Co., 30 Cal.2d 165, 172-173 [ 180 P.2d 900 , 171 A.L.R. 563 ], the court said: “It is a matter of common knowledge that there are often differences of opinion concerning liability under insurance policies and no mere denial of liability, even though it be alleged to have been made through fraud or mistake, should be held sufficient, without more, to deprive the insurer of its privilege of having the disputed liability litigated within the period prescribed by the statute of limitations.” The finding of the trial court that the defendant insurance company was not estopped to assert that the act | 1 | 2 |
Clark v. Bellefonte Insurancegreen2 sentences1999Co. (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 326, 335 [ 169 Cal.Rptr. 832 ].) When the insurer provides a defense to its insured, the insured has no right to interfere with the insurer’s control of the defense, and a stipulated judgment between the insured and the injured claimant, without the consent of the insurer, is ineffective to impose liability upon the insurer. 1999Co. (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 326, 335 [ 169 Cal.Rptr. 832 ].) When the insurer provides a defense to its insured, the insured has no right to interfere with the insurer’s control of the defense, and a stipulated judgment between the insured and the injured claimant, without the consent of the insurer, is ineffective to impose liability upon the insurer. | 1 | 2 |
Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.green2 sentences1990If the insured is seeking coverage against liability of the insured to another, the claim is third party in nature.” (Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 395, 399, fn. 2 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 292 , 770 P.2d 704 ].) Obviously, the claim of a third party against an insurer for violation of some statutory duty in the adjustment or settlement of that party’s claim against an insured is likewise properly characterized as a “third party claim.” 3 Tricor filed an eight-count complaint alleging claims for (1) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (2) breach of fidu 1990If the insured is seeking coverage against liability of the insured to another, the claim is third party in nature.” (Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 395, 399, fn. 2 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 292 , 770 P.2d 704 ].) Obviously, the claim of a third party against an insurer for violation of some statutory duty in the adjustment or settlement of that party’s claim against an insured is likewise properly characterized as a “third party claim.” 3 Tricor filed an eight-count complaint alleging claims for (1) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (2) breach of fidu | 1 | 2 |
| Reliance Insurance Company v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Barickman v. Mercury Casualty Co. CA2/7green | 1 | 1 |
| Long v. Century Indemnity Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Compulink Management Center, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ceresino v. Fire Insurance Exchangegreen | 1 | 1 |
| DOCTORS'CO. INS. SERVICES v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| GRAY CARY v. Vigilant Ins. Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Low v. Golden Eagle Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Skidmore v. Swift & Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of Equalizationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Saunders v. Weissburg & Aronsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Novak v. Low, Ball & Lynchgreen | 1 | 1 |
| County of San Bernardino v. Pacific Indemnity Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club, Inc. v. Industrial Indemnity Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| CALIFORNIA STATE AUTO. ASSN. v. Balesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pacific Estates, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Prudential-LMI Commercial Insurance v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Calfarm Insurance v. Deukmejiangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Native Sun Investment Group v. Ticor Title Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nationwide Insurance v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1986Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 711 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 464 ] [liability not finally determined if appeal is pending].) These cases are distinguishable from the present case in that each involves an injured third party suing an insurer for violation of the Unfair Practices Act. 1986Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 711 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 464 ] [liability not finally determined if appeal is pending].) These cases are distinguishable from the present case in that each involves an injured third party suing an insurer for violation of the Unfair Practices Act. | 4 | 1985–1988 |
Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies
green
2 sentences1992Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 116 , 758 P.2d 58 ], holding Insurance Code section 790.03 does not create a private right of action against an insurer for violation of its provisions. 1992Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 116 , 758 P.2d 58 ], holding Insurance Code section 790.03 does not create a private right of action against an insurer for violation of its provisions. | 3 | 1990–1992 |
Marselis v. Allstate Insurance
green
2 sentences2021Co. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 122, 124 .) Burlington raises several arguments as to why such equitable tolling does not apply here. 20 We need not decide the equitable tolling question. 2021Co. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 122, 124 .) Burlington raises several arguments as to why such equitable tolling does not apply here. 20 We need not decide the equitable tolling question. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Centex Homes v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
green
2 sentences2021(Centex Homes I, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 30 .) Section 2860, subdivision (b) and case law make clear that “ ‘not every reservation of rights entitles an insured to select Cumis counsel.’ [Citation.] Whether independent counsel is required ‘depends upon the nature of the coverage issue, as it relates to the issues in the underlying case.’ [Citation.] ‘There must . . . be evidence that “the outcome of [the] coverage issue can be controlled by counsel first retained by the insurer for the defense of the [underlying] claim.” ’ [Citation.] ‘ 11 “It is only when the basis for the reservation of 2021(Centex Homes I, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 30 .) Section 2860, subdivision (b) and case law make clear that “ ‘not every reservation of rights entitles an insured to select Cumis counsel.’ [Citation.] Whether independent counsel is required ‘depends upon the nature of the coverage issue, as it relates to the issues in the underlying case.’ [Citation.] ‘There must . . . be evidence that “the outcome of [the] coverage issue can be controlled by counsel first retained by the insurer for the defense of the [underlying] claim.” ’ [Citation.] ‘ 11 “It is only when the basis for the reservation of | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co.
green
2 sentences2010If, under the terms of the policy, the insured would have a reasonable expectation that the insurer would provide a defense, any limitation on the insurer's defense obligation must be conspicuous, plain and clear. ( Haynes, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1204 ; Gray, supra, 65 Cal.2d at pp. 272-273.) Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 356 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 44 ] ( Montgomery Ward ) is instructive. 2010If, under the terms of the policy, the insured would have a reasonable expectation that the insurer would provide a defense, any limitation on the insurer's defense obligation must be conspicuous, plain and clear. ( Haynes, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1204 ; Gray, supra, 65 Cal.2d at pp. 272-273.) Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 356 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 44 ] ( Montgomery Ward ) is instructive. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Haynes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
green
2 sentences2010(Haynes, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1204 ; Gray, supra, 65 Cal.2d at pp. 272-273.) Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 356 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 44 ] (Montgomery Ward) is instructive. 2010If, under the terms of the policy, the insured would have a reasonable expectation that the insurer would provide a defense, any limitation on the insurer's defense obligation must be conspicuous, plain and clear. ( Haynes, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1204 ; Gray, supra, 65 Cal.2d at pp. 272-273.) Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 356 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 44 ] ( Montgomery Ward ) is instructive. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Continental Casualty Co. v. Royal Insurance of America
green
2 sentences2003Co. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 111, 119 , 268 Cal. Rptr. 193 ["excess carrier has no duty to investigate settlement options"].) Notably, in its opening brief the County concedes that "ACE had the option of declining involvement in the adjusting process." In any event, we are not required to resolve the issue because the appellate *113 record reveals no triable issue of material fact regarding any opportunity of ACE to explore settlement options. 1991Co., supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at p. 119 .) The excess insurer has no right to step in and try to settle the case (ibid.), unless perhaps it has exercised its option under a provision such as condition H to associate with the primary insurer in the defense. | 2 | 1991–2003 |
Major Clients Agency v. Diemer
green
2 sentences2000Division Three of the First District affirmed an order dismissing the cross-complaint, explaining that this result does not deprive the insurer of a defense based on the attorney’s conduct. “[The insurer] may assert [the lawyer’s] negligence as an affirmative defense to liability and has in fact done so . . . .” (Id. at p. 231.) In Major Clients Agency v. Diemer (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1116 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 613 ], a writer-producer, represented by both his agent and his lawyer, negotiated a contract with a television company. 2000Division Three of the First District affirmed an order dismissing the cross-complaint, explaining that this result does not deprive the insurer of a defense based on the attorney’s conduct. “[The insurer] may assert [the lawyer’s] negligence as an affirmative defense to liability and has in fact done so . . . .” (Id. at p. 231.) In Major Clients Agency v. Diemer (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1116 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 613 ], a writer-producer, represented by both his agent and his lawyer, negotiated a contract with a television company. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Nelson v. National Guaranty Life Co.
green
2 sentences1946Nelson v. National Guaranty Life Co., 131 Cal.App. 669 [ 21 P.2d 1022 ] (hearing denied by Supreme Court), is directly in point. 1946Nelson v. National Guaranty Life Co., 131 Cal.App. 669 [ 21 P.2d 1022 ] (hearing denied by Supreme Court), is directly in point. | 2 | 1936–1946 |
Gray v. Begley
green
1 sentence2025Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386-387 [“[Insurance Code section 11580] provides that a judgment creditor may proceed directly against any liability insurance covering the defendant, and obtain satisfaction of the judgment up to the amount of the policy limits. [Citation.] Thus, where the insurer may be subject to a direct action under Insurance Code section 11580 by a judgment creditor who has or will obtain a default judgment in a third party action against the insured, intervention is appropriate.”].) Moreover, direct intervention is warranted even where (as here) an insur | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Safeco Title Insurance v. Moskopoulos green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Acosta v. Glenfed Development Corp. green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Gu v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Century Transit Systems, Inc. v. American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Legacy Vulcan Corp. v. Superior Court green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Home Ins. Co. v. Zurich Insurance Company green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Hamilton v. Maryland Casualty Co. green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Durham City Bd. of Educ. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| E. L. White, Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Norcal Mutual Insurance Company v. Newton green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Moffett v. Barclay green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Diamond Heights Homeowners Ass'n v. National American Insurance green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Ivy v. Pacific Automobile Insurance green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| James 3 Corp. v. Truck Insurance Exchange green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Gantman v. United Pacific Insurance Co. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| KROLL & TRACK v. Paris & Paris green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Agricultural Insurance v. Superior Court green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Commercial Union Assurance Companies v. Safeway Stores, Inc. green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Farmers Insurance Group v. County of Santa Clara green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Coleman v. Gulf Insurance Group green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Rose v. Royal Insurance green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Swearinger green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Fratis v. Fireman's Fund American Ins. Companies green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Pac. Heating & Ventilating Co. v. Williamsburgh City Fire Ins. Co. of Brooklyn green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Morris v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Jaffe v. Cranford Insurance green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.