58 Cited authorities

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

    11 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 1,539 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. Buss v. Superior Court

    16 Cal.4th 35 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 638 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an insurer may seek reimbursement of defense costs that may be allocated to claims that are not even potentially covered because a party desiring relief carries the burden of proof
  3. Winet v. Price

    4 Cal.App.4th 1159 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 589 times
    In Winet, the California Court of Appeals interpreted Section 1542 as holding that only the outward expression of the parties was indicative of the releaser's state of mind. Based upon the rationale of Winet, Chief Judge Lambros rejected Gillig's attempt to establish his state of mind at the time of the execution of the release.
  4. Gray v. Zurich Ins. Co.

    65 Cal.2d 263 (Cal. 1966)   Cited 1,067 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that insurance companies that breach the duty to defend to be liable on any subsequent judgment
  5. Foster-Gardner, Inc. v. Nat. Fire Ins. Co.; Pitts

    18 Cal.4th 857 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 259 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “the temporal limits of the insurer's duty to defend” lies “between tender of the defense and conclusion of the action.”
  6. Palmer v. Truck Ins. Exchange

    21 Cal.4th 1109 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 225 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.
  7. Barnett v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.

    90 Cal.App.4th 500 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 169 times
    Finding a potential for coverage for defamation even though the underlying action did not allege all of the elements of that cause of action
  8. Gunderson v. Fire Ins. Exchange

    37 Cal.App.4th 1106 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 168 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Gunderson neither the legal theory of property damage nor facts supporting the legal theory of property damage were alleged, but here, the NFL complaint alleges facts potentially supporting a legal theory of slogan infringement.
  9. CNA Casualty of California v. Seaboard Surety Co.

    176 Cal.App.3d 598 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 216 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there was a potential for coverage when the policy period began in November 1969 and the underlying complaint challenged a course of conduct beginning in 1966, because no dates were alleged for the specifically listed wrongful acts
  10. Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. J. Lamb

    100 Cal.App.4th 1017 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 128 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding allegations of patent infringement "clearly allege a disparagement of both [the competitor] as well as its products"
  11. Section 17500 - Untrue or misleading advertising

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500   Cited 2,077 times   57 Legal Analyses
    Requiring action that originated in California to effect consumers in another state
  12. Section 6148 - Contract for services in excess of $1,000

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6148   Cited 132 times

    (a) In any case not coming within Section 6147 in which it is reasonably foreseeable that total expense to a client, including attorney fees, will exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), the contract for services in the case shall be in writing. At the time the contract is entered into, the attorney shall provide a duplicate copy of the contract signed by both the attorney and the client, or the client's guardian or representative, to the client or to the client's guardian or representative. The written

  13. Section 17505 - Unlawful advertisement that one is manufacturer; misrepresentation of business

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17505   Cited 5 times
    Prohibiting the misrepresentation of ownership or control
  14. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 2,149 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or