Legal Opinion

Tana v. Professionals Prototype I Insurance

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 2, 1996No. A071349PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

LAMBDEN, J.

Appellant Chinin Tana appeals from a summary judgment in favor of respondent Professionals Prototype I Insurance Company Limited (Prototype) on Tana’s action seeking a judicial declaration that Prototype had a duty to defend him under the terms of his malpractice insurance policy in an action brought by his former client. We agree with the lower court’s conclusion that Prototype owed no duty to defend Tana because the claim involved only a fee dispute which was clearly outside the scope of his policy.

Background

Tana is a practicing attorney. In 1984, Jozo Sugihara retained…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1966
  2. La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club, Inc. v. Industrial Indemnity Co.California Supreme Court · 1994
  3. George R. Chamberlain, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Allstate Insurance Company, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
  4. Garcia v. Truck Insurance ExchangeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Miller v. Elite InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2007
  2. Continental Casualty Co. v. Donald T. Bertucci, Ltd.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2010
  3. Continental Casualty Co. v. Law Offices of KaplanAppellate Court of Illinois · 2003
  4. Wedeck v. Unocal Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1997
  5. Stone v. Hartford Casualty Co.District Court, C.D. California · 2006

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API