insurer accepted defense in California

2025(Blue Ridge, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 492, 494.) However, when a settlement offer within the policy limit was subsequently tendered, “the insureds refused to agree the insurer could settle if the insureds would be liable for reimbursing the insurer for any noncovered claims.” (Id. at pp. 492-495.) The insureds also refused to “assume their own defense” or to waive a bad faith action against the insurer in the event they suffered a judgment exceeding the policy limits.

2025(Walker, supra, 183 Cal.App.2d at p. 515 .) After the insured injured the plaintiff in an accident, the insurer accepted the defense of the plaintiff’s 9 lawsuit.

2001The policy excluded coverage for injury foreseeably resulting from an insured’s “criminal act.” (20th Century, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 1336 .) The insurer accepted the defense under a reservation of rights but sued Stewart, Guglietti, and Guglietti’s parents to determine coverage.

2001The policy excluded coverage for injury foreseeably resulting from an insured's "criminal act." ( 20th Century, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 1336 , 74 Cal. Rptr.2d 492 .) The insurer accepted the defense under a reservation of rights but sued Stewart, Guglietti, and Guglietti's parents to determine coverage.

2000Exchange, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th 999 , 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 882 , a software company was sued for breach of a sales distribution contract, fraud, RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act), conversion, and libel in denigrating the plaintiffs managing director. ( 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 1002 , 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 882 .) Because only the libel claim appeared to raise the possibility of coverage, the company's insurer accepted the defense under a reservation of rights.

2000Exchange, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th 999 , 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 882 , a software company was sued for breach of a sales distribution contract, fraud, RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act), conversion, and libel in denigrating the plaintiffs managing director. ( 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 1002 , 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 882 .) Because only the libel claim appeared to raise the possibility of coverage, the company's insurer accepted the defense under a reservation of rights.

1998In Buss , a lawsuit alleged 27 causes of action, only one of which was potentially covered by the insurer. (16 Cal.4th at pp. 41-2, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 366 , 939 P.2d 766 .) The insurer accepted the defense and provided a defense while reserving its right to be reimbursed. ( Id. at p. 42, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 366 , 939 P.2d 766 .) The court held the insurer had a duty to defend the entire action, but could seek reimbursement from the insured for defense costs that could be specifically allocated to the defense of claims that were not even potentially covered. ( Id. at pp. 49-50, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 366 , 939

1998In Buss , a lawsuit alleged 27 causes of action, only one of which was potentially covered by the insurer. (16 Cal.4th at pp. 41-2, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 366 , 939 P.2d 766 .) The insurer accepted the defense and provided a defense while reserving its right to be reimbursed. ( Id. at p. 42, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 366 , 939 P.2d 766 .) The court held the insurer had a duty to defend the entire action, but could seek reimbursement from the insured for defense costs that could be specifically allocated to the defense of claims that were not even potentially covered. ( Id. at pp. 49-50, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 366 , 939

1998That question was settled in Aerojet, where the Supreme Court held that if any part of any claim is potentially covered, the insurer has a duty to defend the entire lawsuit, with a right to be reimbursed for that part of the litigation that is not even potentially covered. ( 17 Cal.4th at p. 71 , 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 118 , 948 P.2d 909 .) The reasons stem from contract law and the policy that "to defend meaningfully, [the insurer] must defend immediately. [Citation.] To defend immediately, it must defend entirely." ( Id. at pp. 59-60, 70 Cal. Rptr.2d 118 , 948 P.2d 909 , quoting Buss, supra, 16 Cal.

1998That question was settled in Aerojet, where the Supreme Court held that if any part of any claim is potentially covered, the insurer has a duty to defend the entire lawsuit, with a right to be reimbursed for that part of the litigation that is not even potentially covered. ( 17 Cal.4th at p. 71 , 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 118 , 948 P.2d 909 .) The reasons stem from contract law and the policy that "to defend meaningfully, [the insurer] must defend immediately. [Citation.] To defend immediately, it must defend entirely." ( Id. at pp. 59-60, 70 Cal. Rptr.2d 118 , 948 P.2d 909 , quoting Buss, supra, 16 Cal.