Legal Opinion
Handy v. First Interstate Bank
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 23, 1993No. B056171PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
JOHNSON, J.
In this appeal we are asked to decide whether a trial court may authorize an arbitrator in a court-ordered arbitration pursuant to Civil Code section 2860, governing matters involving Cumis counsel, to decide issues concerning the scope of coverage provided by insurance policies, the existence of a conflict of interest and the insurers’ respective duties to defend. We conclude Civil Code section 2860 does not authorize arbitration of these preliminary issues and reverse and remand the judgment of the trial court with directions to vacate the arbitrator’s award.
Facts and…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Moncharsh v. Heily & BlaseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1981
- San Diego Navy Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance SocietyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Freeman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- American Enterprise, Inc. v. Van WinkleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Truck Insurance Exchange v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich v. Vigilant InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Compulink Management Center, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- GRAY CARY v. Vigilant Ins. Co.California Court of Appeal · 2004
- The Housing Group v. Pma Capital InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.