Legal Opinion
Kazi v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
California Supreme Court
Decided January 18, 2001No. S078962PublishedCited by 52 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CHIN, J.
We granted review to determine whether comprehensive liability insurers who insure only for tangible property losses owe a duty to defend in a dispute involving the right to use an implied easement. Case law and treatises have always acknowledged that actions over easement ownership, interference, or the right to use an easement concern “pure rights in property” or intangible rights only. (See Gunderson v. Fire Ins. Exchange (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1109 [44 Cal.Rptr.2d 272] (Gunderson); see also 6 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3d ed. 2000) Easements, §§ 15:1, 15:5, pp.…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Waller v. Truck Insurance Exchange, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1995
- Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1966
- Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Barbara B.California Supreme Court · 1993
- Lucker Manufacturing, a Unit of Amclyde Engineered Products, Inc. v. The Home Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by52 opinions
- E.M.M.I. Inc. v. Zurich American InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- Rosen v. State Farm General InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- Safeco Insurance of America v. Robert S.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Cunningham v. Universal UnderwritersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Uhrich v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.California Court of Appeal · 2003
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.