Legal Opinion

Prichard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 6, 2000No. G021825PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

SILLS, P. J.

I. Summary

Procedurally, this liability insurance bad faith action comes to us contorted as a sheepshank knot. Some unraveling is necessary.

The trial court filed a judgment ruling:

—The insurer had a duty to defend the underlying “mixed action” to the end;

—The insurer breached its duty to defend by trying to reserve its rights to obtain reimbursement of attorney fees expended in an appeal of the underlying action even though the insurer, in conjunction with another insurer, had paid for the defense of the underlying action;

—The insurer was estopped to assert its rights to…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Buss v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Maryland Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1998
  4. Continental Casualty Co. v. Zurich InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  5. Ringler Associates Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 2000

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Medill v. Westport Ins. Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2006
  2. Emerald Bay Community Ass'n v. Golden Eagle InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  3. Fuller-Austin Insulation Co. v. Highlands InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  4. Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Philadelphia Indemnity InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  5. San Diego Housing Commission v. Industrial Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 2002

21 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