Legal Opinion

Spada v. Unigard Insurance

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided October 28, 2003No. 02-35494; D.C. No. CV-00-01657-AJBPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM*

George and Marietta Spada (the “Spadas”) appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Unigard Insurance Company (“Unigard”). Three issues are presented: (1) whether Unigard had a duty to defend the Spadas against directives issued by the City of Portland (the “City”); (2) whether Unigard’s duty to defend related to the underlying action extended to the Spadas’ affirmative claims; and (3) whether Unigard had the duty to indemnify the Spadas for the costs of remediating their property. Because we conclude that the district court erred, we reverse and remand for…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hoffman Construction Co. of Alaska v. Fred S. James & Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Ledford v. GutoskiOregon Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Safeguard Scientifics, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1991
  4. Klamath Pacific Corp. v. Reliance InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
  5. STK Enterprises, Inc. v. Crusader InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Culbreath Isles Property Owners Ass'n v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of AmericaDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · 2013
  2. Pollock v. Amica Mutual Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2024
  3. Pollock v. Amica Mutual Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2024
  4. Turner v. XL Specialty Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API