§Why CasetextPricing

Interstate Fire & Casualty Company vs. Lennar Corporation

Opposition

27 Cited authorities

  1. Pacific Gas E. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage Etc. Co.

    69 Cal.2d 33 (Cal. 1968)   Cited 1,029 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court erroneously refused to consider extrinsic evidence offered to prove the meaning of a provision to which it was reasonably susceptible

  2. Bay Cities Paving Grading v. Lawyers' Mutual Ins. Co.

    5 Cal.4th 854 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 423 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the word "related" as commonly understood and used encompasses both logical and causal connections

  3. Palmer v. Truck Ins. Exchange

    21 Cal.4th 1109 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 261 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Palmer v. Truck Ins. Exch., 21 Cal. 4th 1109, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 647, 988 P.2d 568 (1999), the California Supreme Court also held that a trademarked name was not a slogan.

  4. Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport Indemnity Co.

    17 Cal.4th 38 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 234 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding each insurer has a duty to defend "separate and independent from the others "

  5. Garcia v. Truck Ins. Exchange

    36 Cal.3d 426 (Cal. 1984)   Cited 185 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, for purposes of contract interpretation, drawing reasonable inferences from uncontroverted evidence is for the court rather than the jury to decide

  6. Mirpad v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn.

    132 Cal.App.4th 1058 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 83 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting definition of person to include organization because organization was defined separately in the policy

  7. Legacy Vulcan Corp. v. Superior Court (Transport Ins. Co.)

    185 Cal.App.4th 677 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 53 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Comparing primary, excess, and umbrella insurance and explaining that “excess insurance provides coverage only upon the exhaustion of specified primary insurance,” whereas “[u]mbrella insurance provides coverage for claims that are not covered by the underlying primary insurance”

  8. Forecast Homes, Inc. v. Steadfast Ins. Co.

    181 Cal.App.4th 1466 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 51 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that coverage to an additional insured, where only the named insured could satisfy the SIR obligation, was not illusory because the “condition of requiring the named insured to pay the deductible amount before coverage is triggered is not a fact or event under [the insurance company]'s control or discretion”

  9. George v. Auto. Club of South. California

    201 Cal.App.4th 1112 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 47 times
    Applying rule, but finding no ambiguity

  10. Fire Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court

    116 Cal.App.4th 446 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 56 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding the exclusion only excludes damage caused by a building ordinance, but not the increased replacement costs due to a building ordinance where loss itself was caused by a covered peril

  11. Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1115   Cited 73,887 times

    (a) Unpublished opinion Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action. (b)Exceptions An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on: (1) When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or (2) When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary