insurer suggest claim in California

2024Co. v. MV Transportation (2005) 36 Cal.4th 643, 654 [“An insurer must defend its insured against claims that create a potential for indemnity under the policy.”].) “‘Determination of the duty to defend depends, in the first instance, on a comparison between the allegations of the complaint and the terms of the policy. [Citation.] But the duty also exists where extrinsic facts known to the insurer suggest that the claim may be covered.’ [Citation.] This includes all facts, both disputed and undisputed, that the insurer knows or ‘“becomes aware of”’ from any source [citation], ‘if not “at the in

2014Co. v. MV Transportation (2005) 36 Cal.4th 643, 654 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 147 , 115 P.3d 460 ].) “ ‘Determination of the duty to defend depends, in the first instance, on a comparison between the allegations of the complaint and the terms of the policy. [Citation.] But the duty also exists where extrinsic facts known to the insurer suggest that the claim may be covered.’ [Citation.] This includes all facts, both disputed and undisputed, that the insurer knows or ‘ “becomes aware of’ ’ from any source [citation] ‘if not “at the inception of the third party lawsuit,” then “at the time of tender” ’ [c

2015Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263, 277-278 (Gray).) An insurer must defend against a suit even ‘“where the evidence suggests, but does not conclusively establish, that the loss is not covered.”’ (Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court (1993) 6 Cal.4th 287, 299 (Montrose ).)” 6 “‘Determination of the duty to defend depends, in the first instance, on a comparison between the allegations of the complaint and the terms of the policy. [Citation.] But the duty also exists where extrinsic facts known to the insurer suggest that the claim may be covered.’ (Scottsdale Ins.

2014Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263, 277-278 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 419 P.2d 168 ].) An insurer must defend against a suit even “ ‘where the evidence suggests, but does not conclusively establish, that the loss is not covered.’ ” (Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court (1993) 6 Cal.4th 287, 299 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467 , 861 P.2d 1153 ] (Montrose).) “Determination of the duty to defend depends, in the first instance, on a comparison between the allegations of the complaint and the terms of the policy. [Citation.] But the duty also exists where extrinsic facts known to the insurer suggest that the claim may

2015Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263, 277-278 (Gray).) An insurer must defend against a suit even ‘“where the evidence suggests, but does not conclusively establish, that the loss is not covered.”’ (Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court (1993) 6 Cal.4th 287, 299 (Montrose ).)” 6 “‘Determination of the duty to defend depends, in the first instance, on a comparison between the allegations of the complaint and the terms of the policy. [Citation.] But the duty also exists where extrinsic facts known to the insurer suggest that the claim may be covered.’ (Scottsdale Ins.

2014Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263, 277-278 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 419 P.2d 168 ].) An insurer must defend against a suit even “ ‘where the evidence suggests, but does not conclusively establish, that the loss is not covered.’ ” (Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court (1993) 6 Cal.4th 287, 299 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467 , 861 P.2d 1153 ] (Montrose).) “Determination of the duty to defend depends, in the first instance, on a comparison between the allegations of the complaint and the terms of the policy. [Citation.] But the duty also exists where extrinsic facts known to the insurer suggest that the claim may

2005Co. v. Barbara B. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1076, 1081 , 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 210 , 846 P.2d 792 .) Determination of the duty to defend depends, in the first instance, on a comparison between the allegations of the complaint and the terms of the policy. ( Montrose, supra, 6 Cal.4th 287, 295 , 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467 , 861 P.2d 1153 .) But the duty also exists where extrinsic facts known to the insurer suggest that the claim may be covered. ( Ibid. ) Moreover, that the precise causes of action pled by the third-party complaint may fall outside policy coverage does not excuse the duty to defend where, under the fac

2005Co. v. Barbara B. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1076, 1081 , 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 210 , 846 P.2d 792 .) Determination of the duty to defend depends, in the first instance, on a comparison between the allegations of the complaint and the terms of the policy. ( Montrose, supra, 6 Cal.4th 287, 295 , 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467 , 861 P.2d 1153 .) But the duty also exists where extrinsic facts known to the insurer suggest that the claim may be covered. ( Ibid. ) Moreover, that the precise causes of action pled by the third-party complaint may fall outside policy coverage does not excuse the duty to defend where, under the fac

2005Co. v. Barbara B. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1076, 1081 , 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 210 , 846 P.2d 792 .) Determination of the duty to defend depends, in the first instance, on a comparison between the allegations of the complaint and the terms of the policy. ( Montrose, supra, 6 Cal.4th 287, 295 , 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467 , 861 P.2d 1153 .) But the duty also exists where extrinsic facts known to the insurer suggest that the claim may be covered. ( Ibid. ) Moreover, that the precise causes of action pled by the third-party complaint may fall outside policy coverage does not excuse the duty to defend where, under the fac

2005Co. v. Barbara B. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1076, 1081 , 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 210 , 846 P.2d 792 .) Determination of the duty to defend depends, in the first instance, on a comparison between the allegations of the complaint and the terms of the policy. ( Montrose, supra, 6 Cal.4th 287, 295 , 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467 , 861 P.2d 1153 .) But the duty also exists where extrinsic facts known to the insurer suggest that the claim may be covered. ( Ibid. ) Moreover, that the precise causes of action pled by the third-party complaint may fall outside policy coverage does not excuse the duty to defend where, under the fac

2021Co. v. Swift Distribution, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 277 : “ ‘Determination of the duty to defend depends, in the first instance, on a comparison between the allegations of the complaint and the terms of the policy. [Citation.] But the duty also exists where extrinsic facts known to the insurer suggest that the claim may be covered.’ [Citation.] This includes all facts, both disputed and undisputed, that the insurer knows or ‘ “becomes aware of” ’ from any source [citation], ‘if not “at the inception of the third party lawsuit,” then “at the time of tender” ’ [citation]. ‘Moreover, that the preci

2017An insurer owes a broad duty to defend against claims that create a potential for indemnity under the insurance policy. [Citation.] An insurer must defend against a suit even ' "where the evidence suggests, but does not conclusively establish, that the loss is not covered." ' " ( Id. at p. 287, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 653 , 326 P.3d 253 .) The Hartford court also explained the manner by which a court is to determine whether an insurer owed its insured a duty to defend: " 'Determination of the duty to defend depends, in the first instance, on a comparison between the allegations of the complaint and th

2015Co. v. MV Transportation (2005) 36 Cal.4th 643, 654 .) This includes all facts, both disputed and undisputed, that the insurer knows or ‘“becomes aware of”’ from any source (Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange of Automobile Club of Southern California (2009) 47 Cal.4th 302, 308 ) ‘if not “at the inception of the third party lawsuit,” then “at the time of tender”’ (Swain v. California Casualty Ins.

2014Co. v. MV Transportation (2005) 36 Cal.4th 643, 654 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 147 , 115 P.3d 460 ].) This includes all facts, both disputed and undisputed, that the insurer knows or “ ‘becomes aware of’ ” from any source (Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange of Automobile Club of Southern California (2009) 47 Cal.4th 302, 308 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 298 , 211 P.3d 1083 ]), “if not ‘at the inception of the third party lawsuit,’ then ‘at the time of tender’ ” (Swain v. California Casualty Ins.

2005Co. v. Barbara B. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1076, 1081 , 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 210 , 846 P.2d 792 .) Determination of the duty to defend depends, in the first instance, on a comparison between the allegations of the complaint and the terms of the policy. ( Montrose, supra, 6 Cal.4th 287, 295 , 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467 , 861 P.2d 1153 .) But the duty also exists where extrinsic facts known to the insurer suggest that the claim may be covered. ( Ibid. ) Moreover, that the precise causes of action pled by the third-party complaint may fall outside policy coverage does not excuse the duty to defend where, under the fac

2005Co. v. Barbara B. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1076, 1081 , 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 210 , 846 P.2d 792 .) Determination of the duty to defend depends, in the first instance, on a comparison between the allegations of the complaint and the terms of the policy. ( Montrose, supra, 6 Cal.4th 287, 295 , 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467 , 861 P.2d 1153 .) But the duty also exists where extrinsic facts known to the insurer suggest that the claim may be covered. ( Ibid. ) Moreover, that the precise causes of action pled by the third-party complaint may fall outside policy coverage does not excuse the duty to defend where, under the fac

2005Co. v. Barbara B. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1076, 1081 , 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 210 , 846 P.2d 792 .) Determination of the duty to defend depends, in the first instance, on a comparison between the allegations of the complaint and the terms of the policy. ( Montrose, supra, 6 Cal.4th 287, 295 , 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467 , 861 P.2d 1153 .) But the duty also exists where extrinsic facts known to the insurer suggest that the claim may be covered. ( Ibid. ) Moreover, that the precise causes of action pled by the third-party complaint may fall outside policy coverage does not excuse the duty to defend where, under the fac

2005Co. v. Barbara B. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1076, 1081 , 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 210 , 846 P.2d 792 .) Determination of the duty to defend depends, in the first instance, on a comparison between the allegations of the complaint and the terms of the policy. ( Montrose, supra, 6 Cal.4th 287, 295 , 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467 , 861 P.2d 1153 .) But the duty also exists where extrinsic facts known to the insurer suggest that the claim may be covered. ( Ibid. ) Moreover, that the precise causes of action pled by the third-party complaint may fall outside policy coverage does not excuse the duty to defend where, under the fac

2014Co. v. Swift Distribution, Inc., supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 287 ; see Legacy Vulcan Corp. v. Superior Court (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 677, 692 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 795 ] [“duty to defend arises if facts alleged in the complaint, or other facts known to the insurer, potentially could give rise to coverage under the policy,” and the “facts need only ‘raise the possibility’ that the insured will be held liable for covered damages”].) Jon Davler does not argue that it could amend its complaint to allege any such facts.

2014Co. v. Swift Distribution, Inc., supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 287 ; see Legacy Vulcan Corp. v. Superior Court (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 677, 692 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 795 ] [“duty to defend arises if facts alleged in the complaint, or other facts known to the insurer, potentially could give rise to coverage under the policy,” and the “facts need only ‘raise the possibility’ that the insured will be held liable for covered damages”].) Jon Davler does not argue that it could amend its complaint to allege any such facts.