Maryland Casualty Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HALLER, J.
This case involves the allocation of defense costs among insurers—two of which paid for the insured’s defense (Maryland Casualty Company and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) and one of which did not (Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company). The court shifted the entire defense burden to Nationwide under equitable subrogation principles. We conclude the court erred because the equitable contribution doctrine, not subrogation, applies. We reverse and remand for the court to equitably allocate defense costs among these insurers.
Facts
Nielsen…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Buss v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Maryland Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1998
- Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc. v. Pylon, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1975
- Signal Companies, Inc. v. Harbor Ins. Co.California Supreme Court · 1980
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- EXECUTIVE RISK INDEMNITY, INC. v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc.District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2009
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania v. Rli Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2002
- Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. American Equity InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Federated Rural Electric Insurance Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2001
- Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Superior Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2006
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.