Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Bellefonte Insurance
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BENKE, Acting P. J.
In this action between successive third party liability carriers, Bellefonte Insurance Company (Bellefonte) appeals a summary judgment in favor of Pacific Indemnity Company (Pacific), determining Bellefonte had a duty to defend its insured in underlying litigation. We are unpersuaded by Bellefonte’s contention the “owned property” exclusion of its policies barred coverage. We agree, however, that equitable contribution principles require proration of defense costs notwithstanding the “excess-only” “other-insurance” provision of Pacific’s policies. Accordingly, we…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- AIU Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Maryland Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1998
- Prahm v. Rupp Construction Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Dart Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 2002
- Century Surety Co. v. United Pacific InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- Fuller-Austin Insulation Co. v. Highlands InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Hartford Casualty Insurance v. Travelers Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 2003
- Advanced Network, Inc. v. Peerless InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.