Legal Opinion

Federal Insurance v. Steadfast Insurance

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 24, 2012No. B227301PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MOSK, J.

INTRODUCTION

The United States brought an action against the insureds—the Sterling defendants—for discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.) (Sterling action). The primary insurance carriers, Steadfast Insurance Company (Steadfast) and Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation (Liberty), insured against claims for “wrongful eviction,” “wrongful entry,” and “invasion of the right of private occupancy.” The excess and umbrella insurance carrier, Federal Insurance Company (Federal), insured against those claims and specifically insured against claims for…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Reserve Insurance Co. v. PisciottaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial HospitalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Arenson v. National Automobile & Casualty InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  4. Powerine Oil Co., Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. MV TRANSP.California Supreme Court · 2005

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Albert v. Truck Ins. Exch., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  2. Crown Capital Securities, L.P. v. Endurance American Specialty InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  3. American States Insurance v. Travelers Property Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 2014
  4. Albert v. Truck Ins. ExchangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018
  5. Baek v. Continental Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 2014

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API