Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Ameron Internat. Corp. v. Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania

California Supreme Court

Decided November 18, 2010No. S153852Published

1Concurrence

KENNARD, J., Concurring.

I concur in the judgment. In Foster-Gardner, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 857 [77 Cal.Rptr.2d 107, 959 P.2d 265] (Foster-Gardner), a decision signed by four justices, this court used a “ ‘literal meaning’ approach” in construing the term “suit” in a standard comprehensive general liability (CGL) insurance policy that did not define that term. (Id. at pp. 869-870, 878-880.) Adopting what it termed a “ ‘bright-line rule’ ” (id. at p. 887), the Foster-Gardner majority held that as used in a CGL policy to define the insurer’s duty of defense,…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Foster-Gardner, Inc. v. National Union Fire InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Employers Insurance of WausauWisconsin Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Compass Insurance Co. v. City of LittletonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1999
  4. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. CommonwealthKentucky Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Summit Corp. of AmericaIndiana Court of Appeals · 1999

8 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