Risely v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
AARON, J.
I
INTRODUCTION
The trial court granted an insurer’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that, as a matter of law, the insurer’s refusal to defend and indemnify its insured against an injured party’s claim of false imprisonment had not caused the insured to suffer any damages. The trial court concluded that the insurer’s refusal to defend the claim under a homeowners policy was “of no consequence” to the insured because the insurer provided the insured a defense pursuant to a separate automobile policy.
We conclude that the mere fact that the insurer provided its insured…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Buss v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- San Diego Navy Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance SocietyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 1997
- Samson v. Transamerica InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
- Ringler Associates Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 2000
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Sprinkles v. Associated Indemnity Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2010
- Hearn Pacific Corp. v. Second Generation Roofing, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2016
- Teleflex Medical Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of PittsburghCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- Dewitt v. Monterey InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- 21st Century Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.