Source: https://www.lexislegalnews.com/mealeys-california-insurance
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 06:24:27+00:00

Document:
SAN FRANCISCO — A residential developments and condominium exclusion relieves a commercial general liability insurer of any duty to defend to contractors in an underlying breach of contract dispute involving a condominium project, a California federal judge ruled April 15 (Colony Insurance Co. v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-00519, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64407).
SAN DIEGO — A California appeals panel on April 8 affirmed a lower court’s finding that a plaintiff failed to satisfy its burden of establishing that an insured completed an aircraft liability insurance policy’s warranty provision to warrant coverage for an underlying crash that killed the insured and his passenger and ignited a fire that allegedly caused $1.75 million in damages to the plaintiff’s property (Rocky Wright v. The Estate Of Walter Johnson, et al., No. E068412, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 2, 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2421).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A California federal judge on March 29 granted a nonprofit organization and management liability insurer’s motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit seeking recovery of an unpaid invoice involving work on a fuel reduction project on lands that were owned in part by the city of South Lake Tahoe, finding that the underlying lawsuit arose as a result of purchase order contracts and fell under the scope of a policy exclusion (Cross Check Services, LLC v. Old Republic Insurance Company, No. 15-02113, E.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54540).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — The personal genome services provider 23andME Inc. and its insurer on March 19 filed a joint stipulation of dismissal of all claims and counterclaims in a coverage dispute over lawsuits arising from the insured's service of providing consumers with genetic data from saliva testing (Ironshore Specialty Insurance Co. v. 23andMe, Inc., No. 14-03286, N.D. Calif.).
PASADENA, Calif. — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 29 affirmed a federal court’s ruling that a commercial general liability insurer did not act in bad faith when it denied coverage for an underlying employment practices lawsuit, finding that the insurer did not act unreasonably when it interpreted the term “intentional” in a policy exclusion to mean “voluntary” (Steven J. Berns v. Sentry Select Insurance Company, No. 17-56264, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9383).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — In a dispute regarding a program involving workers’ compensation insurance and a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA), a trial judge did not err in voiding an arbitration agreement included in a request to bind, a California appeals court held March 28, affirming denial of a motion to compel arbitration (Jackpot Harvesting Inc., et al. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., et al., No. H044953, Calif. App., 6th Dist., 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 278).
SAN DIEGO — A commercial general liability insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify insureds for costs incurred to investigate and repair alleged defects at a military training facility, a California federal judge ruled March 28, finding that no “suit” had been filed (Harper Construction Company Inc., et al. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 18-00471, S.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53183).
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A reinsurer breached its contract and is responsible for the reimbursement of $8.6 million for payment of claims under a commercial property policy, an insurer alleges in a March 25 complaint filed in a California federal court (Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co. v. The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Co., No. 19-00531, C.D. Calif.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Parties on March 25 gave a California federal judge their proposal for modification to the schedules in two putative class actions over a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) entered into by hundreds of California businesses when they bought a workers’ compensation program (Shasta Linen Supply Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., et al., No. 16-158, Pet Food Express Ltd., et al. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., et al., No. 16-1211, E.D. Calif.).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.