Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-03638/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-03638-36/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF 

CONNECTICUT; and ST. PAUL FIRE 

AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

CENTEX HOMES; and CENTEX REAL 

ESTATE CORPORATION, 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 11-CV-03638-SC

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS' 

OBJECTION 

On October 7, 2015, the Court issued an order granting 

Defendants' motion for reconsideration, holding that 

its April 2013 Order as to Travelers' right to control 

Centex's defense in the Acupan and Conner actions was 

inconsistent with a case decided by the California Court 

of Appeal in May 2013, J.R. Mktg., L.L.C. v. Hartford 

Cas. Ins. Co., 216 Cal. App. 4th 1444 (2013), and 

affirmed in relevant part by the California Supreme Court 

in August 2015, Hartford Cas. Ins. v. J.R. Mktg., 61 Cal. 

4th 988 (Aug. 10, 2015)." 

 

ECF No. 235 at 1. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed an objection to 

Defendants' citation of the California Court of Appeal's decision 

in J.R. Marketing. ECF No. 236. Plaintiffs argue that the 

citation is improper because the Court of Appeal's decision was not 

Case 3:11-cv-03638-CRB Document 237 Filed 10/08/15 Page 1 of 2
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

certified for publication. However, neither the Defendants in 

their filings nor the Court in its October 7, 2015 Order cited the 

Court of Appeal decision directly. The California Supreme Court 

affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision and reasoning on whether a 

breach of the duty to defend causes an insurer to lose the right to 

control the defense of an insured. Hartford Cas. Ins., 61 Cal. 4th 

at 997. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal's decision and reasoning 

on that issue was incorporated into the California Supreme Court's 

decision. 

 Plaintiff's objection is OVERRULED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 Dated: October 8, 2015 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:11-cv-03638-CRB Document 237 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 2