§Why CasetextPricing

Michael Cingari vs. Farmers Insurance Company

Opposition

16 Cited authorities

  1. Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Barbara B.

    4 Cal.4th 1076 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 474 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even where the appellate court found the underlying plaintiff's claims to be “insubstantial,” the duty to defend nonetheless existed because the insurer should have raised the insubstantial nature of the claims in the defense of the insured

  2. Scottsdale Insurance v. MV Transportation

    36 Cal.4th 643 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 292 times
    Holding that the duty to defend is not excused where "the [plaintiff's] complaint could fairly be amended to state a covered liability."

  3. Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. J. Lamb

    100 Cal.App.4th 1017 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 151 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding allegations of patent infringement "clearly allege a disparagement of both [the competitor] as well as its products"

  4. Amato v. Mercury Casualty Co.

    18 Cal.App.4th 1784 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 161 times
    Finding that where record is insufficient to address the errors raised, "we indulge all presumptions in favor of the judgment"

  5. Mirpad v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn.

    132 Cal.App.4th 1058 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 88 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting definition of person to include organization because organization was defined separately in the policy

  6. Tradewinds Escrow, Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange

    97 Cal.App.4th 704 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 61 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding where underlying alleged wrongful acts "were committed during the performance of professional services, namely, the rendering of escrow services," coverage was excluded by "professional services exclusion" in policy

  7. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court

    4 Cal.App.4th 544 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 82 times

    Docket No. F015594. March 10, 1992. [Opinion certified for partial publication.] Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of part II. Appeal from Superior Court of Kern County, No. 207978, Lewis E. King, Judge. COUNSEL McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte Carruth, Wade M. Hansard and Theodore W. Hoppe for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Shernoff, Bidart Darras, Michael J. Bidart, Frank N. Darras and Sharon J. Arkin for

  8. Ray v. Valley Forge Ins. Co.

    77 Cal.App.4th 1039 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 58 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding no accident where roofer negligently recommended unsuitable materials because the recommendation was intentional even if roofer did not intend to convey bad advice nor intend the resulting consequences

  9. Barnes v. Black

    71 Cal.App.4th 1473 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 43 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Reversing grant of summary judgment where defendant failed to offer evidence to negate Rowland factors bearing on scope of duty

  10. Residents of Beverly Glen, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

    34 Cal.App.3d 117 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 87 times
    In Beverly Glen, the court found a homeowners association had standing to sue to challenge the citys issuance of a conditional use permit to a developer.

  11. Section 437 - Grounds for motion to appear on face of challenged pleading; motion based on matter subject to judicial notice

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437   Cited 293 times   4 Legal Analyses

    (a) The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (b) Where the motion to strike is based on matter of which the court may take judicial notice pursuant to Section 452 or 453 of the Evidence Code, such matter shall be specified in the notice of motion, or in the supporting points and authorities, except as the court may otherwise permit. Ca. Civ. Proc. Code § 437 Added by Stats. 1982