§Why CasetextPricing

J.R. MARKETING, L.L.C. v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE [To be called and continued to late May or June 2015 oral argument calendar]

Non-Title Respondent, Squire Patton Boggs

34 Cited authorities

  1. Lindsey v. Normet

    405 U.S. 56 (1972)   Cited 784 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the state has no obligation to provide adequate housing

  2. Buss v. Superior Court

    16 Cal.4th 35 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 682 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. AIU Insurance v. Superior Court

    51 Cal.3d 807 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 795 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an insurance policy covered "as damages" the costs associated with complying with an injunction and/or a reimbursement order for environmental clean-up expenses

  4. People ex Rel. Dept., Corps. v. Speedee O. Chg. Sys

    20 Cal.4th 1135 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 537 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where trial court resolved disputed facts, appellate courts review for abuse of discretion, but where there are no disputed factual issues, appellate courts review the trial court's determination as a question of law

  5. Scottsdale Insurance v. MV Transportation

    36 Cal.4th 643 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 283 times
    Holding that the duty to defend is not excused where "the [plaintiff's] complaint could fairly be amended to state a covered liability."

  6. Flatt v. Superior Court

    9 Cal.4th 275 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 365 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where the requisite substantial relationship exists, "access to confidential information by the attorney in the course of the first representation (relevant, by definition, to the second representation) is presumed and disqualification of the attorney's representation of the second client is mandatory; indeed, the disqualification extends vicariously to the entire firm"

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

    17 Cal.4th 38 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 231 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding each insurer has a duty to defend "separate and independent from the others "

  8. Hedging Concepts, Inc. v. First Alliance Mortgage Co.

    41 Cal.App.4th 1410 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 207 times
    Holding that claim for quantum meruit does not lie where there are actual contract terms governing payment

  9. California Medical Assn. v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare of California, Inc.

    94 Cal.App.4th 151 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 155 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding "action for unjust enrichment does not lie where . . . express binding agreements exist and define the parties' rights"; characterizing claim based on unjust enrichment as "quasi-contract" claim

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

    162 Cal.App.3d 358 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 245 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