On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Jun 27, 2013 | Case Updates, Duty to Defend, ERISA - Attorneys' Fees, Firm News
If you want to read an important case on Cumis counsel and the consequences to insurers who fail to fulfill their obligations relating thereto, we have one for you. J.R. Marketing LLC v. The Hartford Cas. Insurance Co., __ Cal.App.4th __ (May 17, 2013). This case...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | May 10, 2013 | Duty to Defend, Firm News, Insurance Bad Faith, Property & Casualty Insurance
A recent California Court of Appeals decision sought to clarify the application of California Insurance Code Section 533.5(b) concerning the statute’s preclusion of an insurer’s duty to defend its insured in criminal actions. In Mt. Hawley Insurance Co. v. Richard...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | May 29, 2012 | Case Updates, Duty to Defend, ERISA, Firm News
In Health Net, Inc. v. RLI Insurance Company, et al., the California Court of Appeal, Second District, reversed a trial court’s entry of judgment on a Motion for Summary Judgment finding some coverage for Health Net, Inc. (“Health Net”) in connection with numerous...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Oct 14, 2011 | Case Updates, Duty to Defend, Firm News, Property & Casualty Insurance
Under certain circumstances, an insurer has the right to intervene in a case against its insured to protect its own rights and to avoid harm to the insurer. These circumstances usually involve cases where an insured is either prevented from appearing and defending,...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Aug 22, 2011 | Case Updates, Duty to Defend, Firm News, Insurance Bad Faith, Legal Articles, Policy Interpretation, Property & Casualty Insurance
According to a recent California appellate court decision, a contractor’s negligent release of asbestos fibers during the removal of asbestos-containing acoustical spray in a condominium complex is excluded by the pollution exclusion in a homeowner association’s...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Mar 15, 2011 | Case Updates, Duty to Defend, Firm News, Insurance Bad Faith, Policy Interpretation, Property & Casualty Insurance
Every now and then a court decision comes along that is a virtual one-stop shop for basic insurance coverage and bad faith principles—a primer for newbie insurance attorneys and a refresher for seasoned litigators. Chief Judge Anthony Ishii’s recent decision granting...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Dec 30, 2010 | Duty to Defend, Firm News
Co-written with Associate Joshua Malter In Advanced Network, Inc. v. Peerless Ins. Co., 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 2078 (Dec. 10, 2010) the California Fourth Appellate District concluded that the theft of $2 million in cash from an insured’s client did not trigger a...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Nov 24, 2010 | Case Updates, Duty to Defend, Firm News
In a closely watched case the California Supreme Court recently expanded the scope of a comprehensive general liability insurer’s (CGL) duty to defend “suits” to an adjudicative proceeding before the former United States Department of Interior Board of Contract...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Oct 11, 2010 | Duty to Defend, Firm News, Insurance Bad Faith
The “reasonable expectations of the insured” doctrine continues to weave its way into all types of insurance coverage cases. This time, it thrust itself into a title insurance case. In Karen Lee v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company,__Cal. App. 4th__...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Aug 5, 2010 | Case Updates, Duty to Defend, Firm News, News
Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) policies that cover personal injury and property damage require CGL carriers to defend “suits,” typically defined to mean “a civil proceeding in which damages . . . to which this insurance applies are alleged.” A question arises...
