Fire Insurance Exchange v. Abbott
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
AGLIANO, P. J.
1. Introduction
Was the trial court required to infer from adult criminal sexual misconduct with a child that the adult intended to injure the child? A finding of such intent precludes insurance coverage due to statutory and policy exclusions for intentionally caused injuries. In these two cases consolidated for purposes of oral argument and decision, Fire Insurance Exchange (insurer) seeks declarations that it is not required to indemnify its insured, Robert Abbott, or defend its insured, Robert Shreve, in underlying civil actions by minors1 seeking damages due to…
2Cases cited59 opinions
- Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1966
- Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1978
- Nestle v. City of Santa MonicaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- DiGenova v. State Board of EducationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Herbert v. LankershimCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by60 opinions
- Waller v. Truck Insurance Exchange, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1995
- Worcester Insurance v. Fells Acres Day School, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
- J. C. Penney Casualty Insurance v. M. K.California Supreme Court · 1991
- Horace Mann Insurance v. LeeberWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1988
- Merced Mutual Insurance v. MendezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.