§Why CasetextPricing

LIBERTY SURPLUS INSURANCE v. LEDESMA AND MEYER CONSTRUCTION

Respondents’ Response to Amicus Curiae Brief

48 Cited authorities

  1. Rowland v. Christian

    69 Cal.2d 108 (Cal. 1968)   Cited 1,244 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Section 1714 superceded prior common-law negligence rules

  2. 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

  3. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Superior Court

    24 Cal.4th 945 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 306 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding duty to indemnify for damages is limited to "money ordered by a court"

  4. C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School District

    53 Cal.4th 861 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 200 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that supervisory personnel could be vicariously liable and noting that "public school personnel may be individually liable for their negligent failure to protect students from harm at others' hands"

  5. Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital

    12 Cal.4th 291 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 266 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. Cypress Point Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Adria Towers, L.L.C.

    226 N.J. 403 (N.J. 2016)   Cited 144 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Applying New Jersey law

  8. 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 "

  9. State v. Cont'l Ins. Co.

    55 Cal.4th 186 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 145 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Noting that courts must give meaning to the language of the insurance policy regarding appropriate allocation method

  10. 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”

  11. Section 1644 - Word understood in ordinary and popular sense

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1644   Cited 728 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that if parties give a term a special meaning, courts must follow the special meaning