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.
7 California opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schaefer/Karpf Productions v. CNA Insurancegreen2 sentences2004Companies (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1306, 1313 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 42 ] [“It is well-settled an insurer who is on notice of an action against its insured and refuses to defend on the ground the alleged claim is not within the policy coverage is bound by a judgment in the action, absent fraud or collusion, ‘as to all material findings of fact essential to the judgment of liability [and damages] of the insured.’ ” (Italics omitted.)]; National Union Fire Ins. 2004Companies (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1306, 1313 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 42 ] [“It is well-settled an insurer who is on notice of an action against its insured and refuses to defend on the ground the alleged claim is not within the policy coverage is bound by a judgment in the action, absent fraud or collusion, ‘as to all material findings of fact essential to the judgment of liability [and damages] of the insured.’ ” (Italics omitted.)]; National Union Fire Ins. | 3 | 3 |
Geddes & Smith, Inc. v. Saint Paul Mercuy Indemnity Co.green2 sentences1998Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 558, 561 [ 334 P.2d 881 ] (Geddes I), (italics added); see also Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 865, 884-886 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 285 , 587 P.2d 1098 ].) The insurer is not bound, however, as to issues “not necessarily adjudicated in the prior action and can still present any defenses not inconsistent with the judgment against the insured.” (Geddes. 1998Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 558, 561 [ 334 P.2d 881 ] (Geddes I), (italics added); see also Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 865, 884-886 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 285 , 587 P.2d 1098 ].) The insurer is not bound, however, as to issues “not necessarily adjudicated in the prior action and can still present any defenses not inconsistent with the judgment against the insured.” (Geddes. | 2 | 2 |
Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co.red2 sentences1998Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 558, 561 [ 334 P.2d 881 ] (Geddes I), (italics added); see also Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 865, 884-886 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 285 , 587 P.2d 1098 ].) The insurer is not bound, however, as to issues “not necessarily adjudicated in the prior action and can still present any defenses not inconsistent with the judgment against the insured.” (Geddes. 1998Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 558, 561 [ 334 P.2d 881 ] (Geddes I), (italics added); see also Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 865, 884-886 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 285 , 587 P.2d 1098 ].) The insurer is not bound, however, as to issues “not necessarily adjudicated in the prior action and can still present any defenses not inconsistent with the judgment against the insured.” (Geddes. | 2 | 2 |
Ceresino v. Fire Insurance Exchangegreen2 sentences1998Exchange (1989) 215 Cal. App.3d 814, 820 [ 264 Cal. Rptr. 30 ].) This requirement is not met here. (4) It is well-settled an insurer who is on notice of an action against its insured and refuses to defend on the ground the alleged claim is not within the policy coverage is bound by a judgment in the action, absent fraud or collusion, "as to all material findings of fact essential to the judgment of liability [ and damages ] of the insured. " ( Geddes & Smith, Inc. v. St. 1998Exchange (1989) 215 Cal. App.3d 814, 820 [ 264 Cal. Rptr. 30 ].) This requirement is not met here. (4) It is well-settled an insurer who is on notice of an action against its insured and refuses to defend on the ground the alleged claim is not within the policy coverage is bound by a judgment in the action, absent fraud or collusion, "as to all material findings of fact essential to the judgment of liability [ and damages ] of the insured. " ( Geddes & Smith, Inc. v. St. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc. v. Jones
green
2 sentences2024It is “ ‘well-settled’ that ‘an insurer who is on notice of an action against its insured and refuses to defend on the ground the alleged claim is not within the policy coverage is bound by a judgment in the action . . . “as to all material findings of fact essential to the judgment of liability [and damages] of the insured.” ’ ” (Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc. v. Jones (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 319, 330 .)4 The only material findings essential to the 4 According to our colleagues in Division Four, “courts have generally examined the right of insurers to reopen and relitigate the liability of the 2015“It is now considered ‘well-settled’ that ‘an insurer who is on notice of an action against its insured and refuses to defend on the ground the alleged claim is not within the policy coverage is bound by a judgment in the action, absent fraud or collusion, “as to all material findings of fact essential to the judgment of liability [and damages] of the insured.” ’ ” (Executive Risk, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 330 .) Similarly, where an insurer “made a calculated decision not to intervene or otherwise protect its interest in [the underlying] proceedings, it is not unfair to preclude [the insur | 2 | 2015–2024 |
National Union Fire Insurance v. Lynette C.
green
2 sentences2004Co. v. Lynette C. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1434 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 496 ] (Lynette C.). 7 ) *712 The reasoning of these authorities is even more persuasive in the present situation, since Golden Eagle overtly declined to participate in the underlying litigation. 2004Co. v. Lynette C. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1434 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 496 ] (Lynette C.). 7 ) *712 The reasoning of these authorities is even more persuasive in the present situation, since Golden Eagle overtly declined to participate in the underlying litigation. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.