otherwise covered claim (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

otherwise covered claim in California

6 California opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2012 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Weil v. Federal Kemper Life Assurance Co.green
cal · 1994 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
2 sentences

1998(Weil v. Federal Kemper Life Assurance Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 125, 148 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 316 , 866 P.2d 774 , 32 A.L.R.5th 789 ].) It is also axiomatic that the insurer has the burden of proving that an otherwise covered claim is barred by a policy exclusion.

1998(Weil v. Federal Kemper Life Assurance Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 125, 148 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 316 , 866 P.2d 774 , 32 A.L.R.5th 789 ].) It is also axiomatic that the insurer has the burden of proving that an otherwise covered claim is barred by a policy exclusion.

22
Buss v. Superior Courtgreen
cal · 1997 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 930, 936 , 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 4 .) An insurer's duty to defend turns on the facts alleged in the underlying complaint, or available to the insurer from extrinsic sources at the time the claim is made. ( Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 295 , 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467 , 861 P.2d 1153 ; Gray, supra, 65 Cal.2d at p. 276 , 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 419 P.2d 168 .) The insured has the burden of showing that the claim fails within the scope of coverage and the insurer has the burden of proving that an otherwise covered claim is barred by a policy exclusion. (

2005Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 930, 936 , 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 4 .) An insurer's duty to defend turns on the facts alleged in the underlying complaint, or available to the insurer from extrinsic sources at the time the claim is made. ( Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 295 , 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467 , 861 P.2d 1153 ; Gray, supra, 65 Cal.2d at p. 276 , 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 419 P.2d 168 .) The insured has the burden of showing that the claim fails within the scope of coverage and the insurer has the burden of proving that an otherwise covered claim is barred by a policy exclusion. (

12
Royal Globe Insurance v. Whitakergreen
calctapp · 1986 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
2 sentences

1998Co. v. Whitaker (1986) 181 Cal. App.3d 532, 537 [ 226 Cal. Rptr. 435 ]; Haskel, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal. App.4th 963, 978, fn. 13 [ 39 Cal. Rptr.2d 520 ].) However, there are few published appellate decisions in California which have considered the issue of whether the insured or the insurer has the burden of proving that coverage is restored to an otherwise excluded claim because the claim falls within an exception to the exclusion.

1998Co. v. Whitaker (1986) 181 Cal. App.3d 532, 537 [ 226 Cal. Rptr. 435 ]; Haskel, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal. App.4th 963, 978, fn. 13 [ 39 Cal. Rptr.2d 520 ].) However, there are few published appellate decisions in California which have considered the issue of whether the insured or the insurer has the burden of proving that coverage is restored to an otherwise excluded claim because the claim falls within an exception to the exclusion.

11
Haskel, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen
calctapp · 1995 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
2 sentences

1998Co. v. Whitaker (1986) 181 Cal. App.3d 532, 537 [ 226 Cal. Rptr. 435 ]; Haskel, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal. App.4th 963, 978, fn. 13 [ 39 Cal. Rptr.2d 520 ].) However, there are few published appellate decisions in California which have considered the issue of whether the insured or the insurer has the burden of proving that coverage is restored to an otherwise excluded claim because the claim falls within an exception to the exclusion.

1998Co. v. Whitaker (1986) 181 Cal. App.3d 532, 537 [ 226 Cal. Rptr. 435 ]; Haskel, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal. App.4th 963, 978, fn. 13 [ 39 Cal. Rptr.2d 520 ].) However, there are few published appellate decisions in California which have considered the issue of whether the insured or the insurer has the burden of proving that coverage is restored to an otherwise excluded claim because the claim falls within an exception to the exclusion.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cty. green
calctapp · 1998
2 sentences

2005Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 930, 936 , 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 4 .) An insurer's duty to defend turns on the facts alleged in the underlying complaint, or available to the insurer from extrinsic sources at the time the claim is made. ( Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 295 , 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467 , 861 P.2d 1153 ; Gray, supra, 65 Cal.2d at p. 276 , 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 419 P.2d 168 .) The insured has the burden of showing that the claim fails within the scope of coverage and the insurer has the burden of proving that an otherwise covered claim is barred by a policy exclusion. (

2005Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 930, 936 , 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 4 .) An insurer's duty to defend turns on the facts alleged in the underlying complaint, or available to the insurer from extrinsic sources at the time the claim is made. ( Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 295 , 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467 , 861 P.2d 1153 ; Gray, supra, 65 Cal.2d at p. 276 , 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 419 P.2d 168 .) The insured has the burden of showing that the claim fails within the scope of coverage and the insurer has the burden of proving that an otherwise covered claim is barred by a policy exclusion. (

22005–2005
Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court green
cal · 1993
2 sentences

2005(Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 295 ; Gray, supra, 65 Cal.2d at p. 276 .) The insured has the burden of showing that the claim falls within the scope of coverage and the insurer has the burden of proving that an otherwise covered claim is barred by a policy exclusion.

2005Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 930, 936 , 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 4 .) An insurer's duty to defend turns on the facts alleged in the underlying complaint, or available to the insurer from extrinsic sources at the time the claim is made. ( Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 295 , 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467 , 861 P.2d 1153 ; Gray, supra, 65 Cal.2d at p. 276 , 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 419 P.2d 168 .) The insured has the burden of showing that the claim fails within the scope of coverage and the insurer has the burden of proving that an otherwise covered claim is barred by a policy exclusion. (

22005–2005
Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. green
cal · 1966
2 sentences

2005(Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 295 ; Gray, supra, 65 Cal.2d at p. 276 .) The insured has the burden of showing that the claim falls within the scope of coverage and the insurer has the burden of proving that an otherwise covered claim is barred by a policy exclusion.

2005(Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 295 ; Gray, supra, 65 Cal.2d at p. 276 .) The insured has the burden of showing that the claim falls within the scope of coverage and the insurer has the burden of proving that an otherwise covered claim is barred by a policy exclusion.

22005–2005
Barron v. Scaife green
lactapp · 1988
1 sentence

2012For example, in Barron v. Scaife (La.Ct.App. 1988) 535 So.2d 830 , an insurance agent was accused of failing to notify its insured of the insurance company’s insolvency.

12012–2012
Union Oil Co. v. International Insurance Co. green
calctapp · 1995
2 sentences

2005Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 930, 936 , 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 4 .) An insurer's duty to defend turns on the facts alleged in the underlying complaint, or available to the insurer from extrinsic sources at the time the claim is made. ( Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 295 , 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467 , 861 P.2d 1153 ; Gray, supra, 65 Cal.2d at p. 276 , 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 419 P.2d 168 .) The insured has the burden of showing that the claim fails within the scope of coverage and the insurer has the burden of proving that an otherwise covered claim is barred by a policy exclusion. (

2005Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 930, 936 , 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 4 .) An insurer's duty to defend turns on the facts alleged in the underlying complaint, or available to the insurer from extrinsic sources at the time the claim is made. ( Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 295 , 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467 , 861 P.2d 1153 ; Gray, supra, 65 Cal.2d at p. 276 , 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 419 P.2d 168 .) The insured has the burden of showing that the claim fails within the scope of coverage and the insurer has the burden of proving that an otherwise covered claim is barred by a policy exclusion. (

12005–2005
Lawrence v. Western Mutual Insurance green
calctapp · 1988
2 sentences

1990Co., supra, 204 Cal. App.3d at p. 573 .) The Neff court, in refusing to apply estoppel to facts identical to this case, used a similar rationale: If denial of an otherwise covered claim were always treated as concealment of facts upon which to premise estoppel, "... that would mean that no insurer could deny liability without indefinitely suspending the running of the statute of limitations until perchance the insured ... might obtain at some future time legal advice indicating the view that liability existed." ( Neff v. New York Life Ins.

1990Co., supra, 204 Cal.App.3d at p. 573 .) The Neff court, in refusing to apply estoppel to facts identical to this case, used a similar rationale: If denial of an otherwise covered claim were always treated as concealment of facts upon which to premise estoppel, “ . . . that would mean that no insurer could deny liability without indefinitely suspending the running of the statute of limitations until perchance the insured . . . might obtain at some future time legal advice indicating the view that liability existed.” (Neff v. New York Life Ins.

11990–1990
Neff v. New York Life Insurance green
cal · 1947
2 sentences

1990Co., supra, 30 Cal.2d at p. 172 .) Thus, the courts have not tolled the statute of limitations merely because the plaintiff was ignorant or not informed of his legal remedies.

1990Co., supra, 30 Cal.2d at p. 172 .) Thus, the courts have not tolled the statute of limitations merely because the plaintiff was ignorant or not informed of his legal remedies.

11990–1990

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check