41 Cited authorities

  1. Doe v. Shaffer

    90 Ohio St. 3d 388 (Ohio 2000)   Cited 732 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that providing liability insurance coverage to a diocese and bishop for their negligence relating to alleged sexual abuse committed by others would not violate public policy
  2. 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.
  3. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Tech Dry, Inc.

    336 F.3d 503 (6th Cir. 2003)   Cited 231 times
    Finding that coverage extended to the insured's negligent hiring of the intentional tortfeasor
  4. Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill

    36 Cal.4th 224 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 218 times
    Finding restaurants, bars, and shopping centers have affirmative duty to reasonably secure premises against reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of third parties
  5. Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital

    12 Cal.4th 291 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 265 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although a hospital technician's sexual assault of a patient was enabled by his employment, the tort was not foreseeable and did not arise out of emotions engendered by the job
  6. State v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    45 Cal.4th 1008 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 182 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the policy holder must do more than speculate that some polluting event may have occurred suddenly and accidentally
  7. Minkler v. Safeco America

    49 Cal.4th 315 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 151 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to permit a severability of insurance clause to prevail over a plainly worded exclusion for intentional acts “would effectively nullify a policy exclusion in the case of married coinsureds, since one coinsured spouse could always demand coverage for the excluded tortious act of the other on the mere basis of derivative community property liability”
  8. Garvey v. State Farm Fire Casualty Co.

    48 Cal.3d 395 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 262 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Concluding “the question of causation is for the jury to decide” because the record contained sufficient evidence to support either of two causal possibilities
  9. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Partridge

    10 Cal.3d 94 (Cal. 1973)   Cited 326 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding "all ambiguities in an insurance policy are construed against the insurer-draftsman"
  10. Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club

    47 Cal.4th 302 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 110 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Distinguishing a case that focused on an insurance policy's exclusionary clauses from the case at hand which focused on a policy's coverage clause
  11. 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