§Why CasetextPricing

Century-National Insurance Company vs. Burness Flooring Inc.

Motion for Joinder

29 Cited authorities

  1. Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc.

    11 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 1,806 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, when extrinsic facts eliminate the potential for coverage, an insurer may decline to defend even if the complaint had suggested potential liability

  2. Fletcher v. Western National Life Ins. Co.

    10 Cal.App.3d 376 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 489 times
    Holding that accusing plaintiff of insurance fraud "may legally be the basis for an action for damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress"

  3. San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Society, Inc.

    162 Cal.App.3d 358 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 246 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an insurance company must hire an independent attorney to represent its insured when the carrier reserves the right to deny coverage at a later date

  4. LA Sound USA, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.

    156 Cal.App.4th 1259 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 68 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "reimbursement here is required by rescission" because "[u]nlike a Buss mixed action, in this case [the insurer]'s duty to defend was nonexistent from the inception."

  5. Miller v. Elite Ins. Co.

    100 Cal.App.3d 739 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 125 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "establishment of a reserve fund for the defense" of a claim is an indication that the insurer perceived a potential for liability

  6. Dalrymple v. United Services Auto. Assn.

    40 Cal.App.4th 497 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 77 times
    Affirming summary judgment for insurer which raised legitimate third party coverage dispute

  7. DuBeck v. California Physicians' Service

    234 Cal.App.4th 1254 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 37 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In DuBeck the issue of waiver was raised in the papers opposing the motion for summary judgment and the lower court failed to address it.

  8. Truck Ins. Exchange v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.

    6 Cal.App.4th 1050 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 77 times
    Noting that California's hot potato doctrine prohibits a lawyer that "knowingly undertakes adverse concurrent representation" from "avoid[ing] disqualification by withdrawing from the representation of the less favored client"

  9. Barrera v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.

    71 Cal.2d 659 (Cal. 1969)   Cited 149 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the quasi-public nature of insurance and the public policy behind requiring drivers to have insurance required the insurer to make reasonable inquiry into the insured's application

  10. DeWitt v. Monterey Ins. Co.

    204 Cal.App.4th 233 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 20 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "an insurer has a duty to accept a reasonable settlement offer only with respect to a covered claim."

  11. Section 1654 - Interpretation against party causing uncertainty

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1654   Cited 680 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Codifying the doctrine of contra proferentem

  12. Section 389 - Generally

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 389   Cited 554 times
    Defining "indispensable party" to include a person who "claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in [its] absence may . . . as a practical matter impair or impede [its] ability to protect that interest"

  13. Section 2860 - Duty of insurer to provide independent counsel to insured

    Cal. Civ. Code § 2860   Cited 278 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Implementing Cumis rule

  14. Section 331 - Injured party entitled to rescind

    Cal. Ins. Code § 331   Cited 146 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Governing concealment

  15. Section 359 - Injured party entitled to rescind

    Cal. Ins. Code § 359   Cited 92 times
    Providing for rescission "from the time representation becomes false"

  16. Section 330 - Definition

    Cal. Ins. Code § 330   Cited 82 times
    Defining "concealment" as "[n]eglect to communicate that which a party knows, and ought to communicate"

  17. Rule 3.770 - Dismissal of class actions

    Cal. R. 3.770   Cited 30 times

    (a) Court approval of dismissal A dismissal of an entire class action, or of any party or cause of action in a class action, requires court approval. The court may not grant a request to dismiss a class 23 action if the court has entered judgment following final approval of a settlement. Requests for dismissal must be accompanied by a declaration setting forth the facts on which the party relies. The declaration must clearly state whether consideration, direct or indirect, is being given for the

  18. Rule 3.760 - Application

    Cal. R. 3.760   Cited 18 times

    (a) Class actions The rules in this chapter apply to each class action brought under Civil Code section 1750 et seq. or Code of Civil Procedure section 382 until the court finds the action is not maintainable as a class action or revokes a prior class certification. (b) Relief from compliance with rules The court, on its own motion or on motion of any named party, may grant relief from compliance with the rules in this chapter in an appropriate case. Cal. R. Ct. 3.760 Rule 3.760 amended and renumbered