§Why CasetextPricing

LIBERTY SURPLUS INSURANCE v. LEDESMA AND MEYER CONSTRUCTION

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s Request to Answer Question of State Law

12 Cited authorities

  1. Lehman Brothers v. Schein

    416 U.S. 386 (1974)   Cited 760 times
    Holding that the decision to certify a case a question is within the “sound discretion” of federal courts

  2. 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”

  3. Pino v. United States

    507 F.3d 1233 (10th Cir. 2007)   Cited 122 times
    Identifying factors that may justify certification

  4. 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

  5. Hogan v. Midland Nat. Ins. Co.

    3 Cal.3d 553 (Cal. 1970)   Cited 151 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that damage to timber boards resulting from a defective saw supplied by the insured was an "accident"

  6. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Bay Area Cab Lease, Inc.

    756 F. Supp. 1287 (N.D. Cal. 1991)   Cited 21 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Bay Area Cab Lease, Inc., 756 F. Supp. 1287 (N.D. Cal. 1991), an insurer brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that a cab company's liability policy did not require the insurer to defend the cab company in a suit brought by the parents of a boy who was sexually molested by one of the cab company's drivers.

  7. Westfield Ins. Co. v. TWT, Inc.

    723 F. Supp. 492 (N.D. Cal. 1989)   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Westfield Ins. Co. v. TWT, Inc., 723 F.Supp. 492 (N.D.Cal.1989), the insurer sought a declaration that it was not obligated to defend and indemnify the insured in an underlying lawsuit arising from the insured's dealings with a failed financial savings and loan institution.

  8. L.A. Checker Cab Cooperative, Inc. v. First Specialty Ins. Co.

    186 Cal.App.4th 767 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 1 times

    No. B213948. June 14, 2010. Appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC359867, Rex Heeseman, Judge. Law Offices of Neil C. Evans and Neil C. Evans for Cross-complainant and Appellant. Cresswell, Echeguren, Rodgers Noble, Ronald D. Echeguren, Elsa S. Baldwin and Matthew S. Harvey for Cross-defendant and Respondent. OPINION ROTHSCHILD, J. We hold that the employer in this case is not covered for an assault and battery by its employee under the "bodily injury" provision of its commercial

  9. Farmer ex rel. Hansen v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    311 F. Supp. 2d 884 (C.D. Cal. 2004)   Cited 6 times

    311 F.Supp.2d 884 (C.D.Cal. 2004) Ashley L. FARMER, a Minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Andrea HANSEN, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Defendant. No. CV 03-05764-SVW. United States District Court, C.D. California. Feb. 5, 2004 Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP by Peter H. Klee and Joseph E. Foss, San Diego, CA, for Defendant Allstate Insurance Company. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

  10. Farmer v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    171 F. App'x 111 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 2 times

    Submitted November 14, 2005. This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3) Albert S. Israel, Esq., Fields & Israel, Long Beach, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Bruce A. Greenberg, Esq., Bruce A. Greenberg, APLC, Long Beach, CA, Peter H. Klee, Esq., Luce Forward Hamilton & Scripps, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court

  11. Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1983   Cited 485,542 times   688 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

  12. Rule 8.548 - Decision on request of a court of another jurisdiction

    Cal. R. 8.548   Cited 209 times

    (a)Request for decision On request of the United States Supreme Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the court of last resort of any state, territory, or commonwealth, the Supreme Court may decide a question of California law if: (1) The decision could determine the outcome of a matter pending in the requesting court; and (2) There is no controlling precedent. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b)Form and contents of request The request must take the form of an order of the requesting