HCM Healthcare, Inc. v. California Insurance Guarantee Association

Full title: HCM HEALTHCARE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division

Date published: Sep 28, 2010

No. B213373 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 28, 2010)

Opinion

Page 757f

188 Cal.App.4th 757f __ Cal.Rptr.3d __ HCM HEALTHCARE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Respondent. B213373 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Eighth Division September 28, 2010

Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC353553.

ORDERING MODIFYING OPINION

THE COURT:

GOOD CAUSE appearing the opinion filed in the above entitled matter on August 30, 2010 (187 Cal.App.4th 1317;___Cal.Rptr.3d___), is modified as follows:

On page 1, third paragraph [187 Cal.App.4th 1319, advance reports, 2d par., Counsel segment], which reads:

Black, Compean, Hall & Eli, Frederick G. Hall and Vicente Valencia, for Defendant and Respondent.

should be replaced with the following:

Black, Compean, Hall & Eli, Frederick G. Hall and Vicente Valencia, Jr., for Defendant and Respondent.

On page 8, footnote 3 [187 Cal.App.4th 1325, advance reports, fn. 3, lines 1-2], which reads:

CIGA also contends that the judgment should be affirmed because appellants had “other insurance.” (Ins. Code, § 1063.1, subd. (c)(1)(a).)

should be replaced with the following:

CIGA also contends that the judgment should be affirmed because appellants had “other insurance.” (Ins. Code, § 1063.1, subd. (c)(9)(A).)

There is no change in judgment.