§Why CasetextPricing

HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE v. SWIFT DISTRIBUTION

Respondent’s Answer Brief on the Merits

58 Cited authorities

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

    11 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 1,745 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 681 times   16 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 656 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 1,093 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 281 times   7 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 257 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 185 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 183 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. Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. J. Lamb

    100 Cal.App.4th 1017 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 141 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding allegations of patent infringement "clearly allege a disparagement of both [the competitor] as well as its products"

  10. Collin v. American Empire Ins. Co.

    21 Cal.App.4th 787 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 177 times
    Holding conversion of property does not give rise to damages from "loss of use" of property where, as here, the plaintiff seeks to recover the value of the property itself: "`Loss of use' of property is different from `loss' of property."

  11. Section 17500 - Untrue or misleading advertising

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500   Cited 2,652 times   64 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 141 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 4 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 3,146 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