The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.
Emphasizing the difference between the broad duty to defend and the narrower duty to indemnify, this decision holds that the defendant insurer breached its contractual duty to defend plaintiff homeowner against a suit for damages caused by two pit bull dogs that the complaint alleged were owned by the homeowner. The homeowners insurance policy contained an express exclusion of coverage… Read More
Plaintiff sued insurer #1, claiming it owed a duty to defend him against a suit by a conservation land trust that he had violated the trust's conservation easement over his land by various development activities he undertook on the property. That suit resulted in a judgment for the insurer, affirmed on appeal, denying coverage on the ground that the suit… Read More
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in staying this case under CCP 410.30 on the ground of forum non conveniens. The complaint sought a declaration regarding the plaintiffs' duty to defend and indemnify defendants under various insurance policies for opioid litigation brought against defendants throughout the country. There was already an on-going coverage action involving plaintiff and defendant… Read More
The plaintiff insurer did not void its claim for equitable contribution by other insurers allegedly covering the loss by alleging that after paying for the insured's defense, it discovered facts that it claimed showed it owed the insured no coverage. The duty to defend attaches immediately and is not undermined by later discovery of facts that show coverage was not… Read More
