44 Cited authorities

  1. Rowland v. Christian

    69 Cal.2d 108 (Cal. 1968)   Cited 1,015 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Section 1714 superceded prior common-law negligence rules
  2. Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co.

    65 Cal.2d 263 (Cal. 1966)   Cited 953 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 205 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding duty to indemnify for damages is limited to "money ordered by a court"
  4. Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport Indemnity Co.

    17 Cal.4th 38 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 182 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding each insurer has a duty to defend "separate and independent from the others "
  5. State v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    45 Cal.4th 1008 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 130 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the policy holder must do more than speculate that some polluting event may have occurred suddenly and accidentally
  6. C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High Sch. Dist.

    53 Cal.4th 861 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 118 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"
  7. Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital

    12 Cal.4th 291 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 179 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under a respondeat superior theory, an employer is held vicariously liable for the torts committed by its employee within the course and scope of employment
  8. Cypress Point Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Adria Towers, L.L.C.

    226 N.J. 403 (N.J. 2016)   Cited 91 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Summarizing cases holding that cost of replacing faulty work is not covered by CGL policies, distinguishing question of whether consequential damages caused by faulty workmanship are covered
  9. State v. Cont'l Ins. Co.

    55 Cal.4th 186 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 100 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Noting that courts must give meaning to the language of the insurance policy regarding appropriate allocation method
  10. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Partridge

    10 Cal.3d 94 (Cal. 1973)   Cited 294 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding "all ambiguities in an insurance policy are construed against the insurer-draftsman"
  11. Section 1644

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1644   Cited 365 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Noting that if parties give a term a special meaning, courts must follow the special meaning