Legal Opinion
Fire Insurance Exchange v. Jiminez
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 14, 1986No. B014499PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
YEGAN, J. *
From a declaratory relief judgment, Fire Insurance Exchange (hereinafter Exchange) appeals the determination that it has a duty to defend its insured, Manuel Jiminez (hereinafter Jiminez), in a personal injury suit pending in the superior court. Jiminez has filed a cross-appeal and seeks relief from another aspect of the judgment which, notwithstanding the duty to defend, declares that Exchange is not required to indemnify him for any damages as a result of the underlying lawsuit.
On its appeal, Exchange contends: “I. An insurer has no duty to defend an insured where the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1966
- Crane v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.California Supreme Court · 1971
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. CossCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- Pacific Employers Insurance v. Maryland Casualty Co.California Supreme Court · 1966
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. DrasinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Barbara B.California Supreme Court · 1993
- Fire Insurance Exchange v. AbbottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
- Hurley Constr. Co. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.California Court of Appeal · 1992
- Amato v. Mercury Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1993
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.