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.
9 California opinions name it 1 courts 1980–1992 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co.green2 sentences1992Co. v. Partridge (1973) 10 Cal.3d 94, 100 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 811 , 514 P.2d 123 ].) The premise to Hurley’s action against State Farm is that “. . . the insurer must furnish a defense when it learns of facts from any source that create the potential of liability under its policy. [Citations.]” (CNA Casualty of California v. Seaboard Surety Co. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 598, 606 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 276 ].) A carrier must defend its insured against a claim “. . . which potentially seeks damages within the coverage of the policy.” (Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263, 275 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 1992Co. v. Partridge (1973) 10 Cal.3d 94, 100 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 811 , 514 P.2d 123 ].) The premise to Hurley’s action against State Farm is that “. . . the insurer must furnish a defense when it learns of facts from any source that create the potential of liability under its policy. [Citations.]” (CNA Casualty of California v. Seaboard Surety Co. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 598, 606 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 276 ].) A carrier must defend its insured against a claim “. . . which potentially seeks damages within the coverage of the policy.” (Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263, 275 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , | 6 | 6 |
CNA Casualty of California v. Seaboard Surety Co.red2 sentences1992Co. v. Partridge (1973) 10 Cal.3d 94, 100 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 811 , 514 P.2d 123 ].) The premise to Hurley’s action against State Farm is that “. . . the insurer must furnish a defense when it learns of facts from any source that create the potential of liability under its policy. [Citations.]” (CNA Casualty of California v. Seaboard Surety Co. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 598, 606 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 276 ].) A carrier must defend its insured against a claim “. . . which potentially seeks damages within the coverage of the policy.” (Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263, 275 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 1992Co. v. Partridge (1973) 10 Cal.3d 94, 100 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 811 , 514 P.2d 123 ].) The premise to Hurley’s action against State Farm is that “. . . the insurer must furnish a defense when it learns of facts from any source that create the potential of liability under its policy. [Citations.]” (CNA Casualty of California v. Seaboard Surety Co. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 598, 606 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 276 ].) A carrier must defend its insured against a claim “. . . which potentially seeks damages within the coverage of the policy.” (Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263, 275 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , | 4 | 5 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Partridgegreen2 sentences1992Co. v. Partridge (1973) 10 Cal.3d 94, 100 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 811 , 514 P.2d 123 ].) The premise to Hurley’s action against State Farm is that “. . . the insurer must furnish a defense when it learns of facts from any source that create the potential of liability under its policy. [Citations.]” (CNA Casualty of California v. Seaboard Surety Co. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 598, 606 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 276 ].) A carrier must defend its insured against a claim “. . . which potentially seeks damages within the coverage of the policy.” (Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263, 275 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 1992Co. v. Partridge (1973) 10 Cal.3d 94, 100 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 811 , 514 P.2d 123 ].) The premise to Hurley’s action against State Farm is that “. . . the insurer must furnish a defense when it learns of facts from any source that create the potential of liability under its policy. [Citations.]” (CNA Casualty of California v. Seaboard Surety Co. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 598, 606 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 276 ].) A carrier must defend its insured against a claim “. . . which potentially seeks damages within the coverage of the policy.” (Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263, 275 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , | 2 | 2 |
Eichler Homes, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, Londongreen2 sentences1987(CNA Casualty of California v. Seaboard Surety Co. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 598, 605 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 276 ].) Appellants repeat the well-accepted rule that “the carrier must defend a suit which potentially seeks damages within the coverage of the policy . . . .” (Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263, 275 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 419 P.2d 168 ].) Appellants properly note: “The insurer’s obligation to defend is not dependent on the facts contained in the complaint alone; the insurer must furnish a defense when it learns of facts from any source that create the potential of liability under i 1987(CNA Casualty of California v. Seaboard Surety Co. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 598, 605 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 276 ].) Appellants repeat the well-accepted rule that “the carrier must defend a suit which potentially seeks damages within the coverage of the policy . . . .” (Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263, 275 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 419 P.2d 168 ].) Appellants properly note: “The insurer’s obligation to defend is not dependent on the facts contained in the complaint alone; the insurer must furnish a defense when it learns of facts from any source that create the potential of liability under i | 2 | 2 |
Giddings v. Industrial Indemnity Co.green2 sentences1987But the insurer’s obligation is not unlimited; the duty to defend is measured by the nature and kind of risks covered by the policy [citations].” (Giddings v. Industrial Indemnity Co. (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 213, 217-218 [ 169 Cal.Rptr. 278 ].) “ ‘In construing the language of an insurance policy, a court should give the words used their plain and ordinary meaning, unless the policy clearly indicates to the contrary .... 1987But the insurer’s obligation is not unlimited; the duty to defend is measured by the nature and kind of risks covered by the policy [citations].” (Giddings v. Industrial Indemnity Co. (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 213, 217-218 [ 169 Cal.Rptr. 278 ].) “ ‘In construing the language of an insurance policy, a court should give the words used their plain and ordinary meaning, unless the policy clearly indicates to the contrary .... | 2 | 2 |
Saylin v. California Insurance Guarantee Ass'ngreen2 sentences1992Guarantee Assn. (1986) 179 Cal. App.3d 256, 263 [ 224 Cal. Rptr. 493 ].) (2b) The Fireman's Fund complaint, on its face, alleged no facts showing a potential for coverage. 1992Guarantee Assn. (1986) 179 Cal. App.3d 256, 263 [ 224 Cal. Rptr. 493 ].) (2b) The Fireman's Fund complaint, on its face, alleged no facts showing a potential for coverage. | 1 | 1 |
Oil Base, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co.green2 sentences1990Co. (1969) 271 Cal. App.2d 378, 389 [ 76 Cal. Rptr. 594 ].) At trial, Richards admitted INA was aware an insurer cannot legally pay the amount of its limits and thereafter abandon defense of its insured. (4) "The insurer's obligation to defend is not dependent on the facts contained in the complaint alone; the insurer must furnish a defense when it learns the facts from any source that creates the potential for liability under its policy. [Citations.] Indeed, the duty to defend is so broad that as long as the complaint contains language creating the potential of liability under an insurance po 1990Co. (1969) 271 Cal. App.2d 378, 389 [ 76 Cal. Rptr. 594 ].) At trial, Richards admitted INA was aware an insurer cannot legally pay the amount of its limits and thereafter abandon defense of its insured. (4) "The insurer's obligation to defend is not dependent on the facts contained in the complaint alone; the insurer must furnish a defense when it learns the facts from any source that creates the potential for liability under its policy. [Citations.] Indeed, the duty to defend is so broad that as long as the complaint contains language creating the potential of liability under an insurance po | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cathay Mortuary (Wah Sang) Inc. v. United Pacific Insurance
green
1 sentence1990(N.D.Cal. 1984) 582 F. Supp. 650, 655 .) The court here so instructed the jury. (6) INA argues its policy permitted it to refuse to appeal any portion of the judgments, despite advice from its counsel to the contrary, and to interplead the balance of its policy proceeds into court, and relies upon Johnson v. Continental Ins. | 1 | 1990–1990 |