Court Opinion

ID: 9752611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:22:08.118427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:19.487307
License: Public Domain

Jacobs, J.
(dissenting). The insurance carrier in effect refused to participate in the defense of the assured, either with or without reservation. The trial court found that this flat abandonment of the assured violated the broad policy *400covenant to defend and subjected the carrier to responsibility for the ensuing consequences. In granting summary judgment against tbe carrier, the trial court accepted pertinent principles recently expressed in tbe full opinion of tbe California Supreme Court in Gray v. Zurich Ins. Co., 65 Cal. 2d 263, 54 Cal. Rptr. 104, 419 P. 2d 168 (1966). See also Lowell v. Maryland Casualty Company, 65 Cal. 2d 298, 54 Cal. Rptr. 116, 419 P. 2d 180 (1966); Missionaries of the Co. of Mary, Inc. v. Aetna Cos. & S. Co., 155 Conn. 104, 230 A. 2d 21, 26 (1967); Boston Ins. Co. v. Maddux Well Service, 459 P. 2d 777, 779-80 (Wyo. Sup. Ct. 1969); cf. Farbstein & Stillman, “Insurance for the Commission of Intentional Torts,” 20 Hastings L. J. 1219, 1232-33 (1969); but cf. Keeton, “Insurance Law Rights at Variance With Policy Provisions,” 83 Harv. L. Rev. 961, 970 n. 15 ( 1970). Since I believe that, under the particular circumstances presented here, application of those principles would more clearly and more justly fulfill the reasonable expectations of the assured in the purchase of his insurance policy with “Comprehensive Personal Liability Coverage” (cf. Gerhardt v. Continental Ins. Cos., 48 N. J. 291, 297-98 (1966)), I vote to affirm.