Legal Opinion

Etchell v. Royal Insurance

District Court, N.D. California

Decided January 18, 1996No. C-94-1061 SBAPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION RE FEES AND COSTS

BRAZIL, United States Magistrate Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Earlier this year Judge Armstrong ruled that Safeguard wrongfully denied a tender by the Etchells of an underlying state court action. The District Court further ruled that because of that wrongful denial, Safeguard was obligated to reimburse the Etchells for fees and costs reasonably incurred in their defense in the tendered matter. Judge Armstrong did not purport to fix the conceptual scope of the reimbursement obligation. Nor did she determine the amount owing. Instead, she referred those matters to…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Waller v. Truck Insurance Exchange, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Intel Corporation v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
  4. Bertero v. National General Corp.California Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1978

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Messa v. Omaha Property & Casualty InsuranceDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2000
  2. Emhart Industries, Inc. v. Home InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Rhode Island · 2007
  3. Insua v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.California Court of Appeal · 2002
  4. Insua v. Scottsdale InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  5. Garnicas Transport LLC v. Commercial Alliance Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023

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

Powered by the Exa API