A Recent California Supreme Court Decision Clarifies when an Intentional Act with Unforeseen Results is an Accident under a Liability Policy

Generally, an insured will not receive coverage under a liability policy when they intentionally cause the loss or injury for which they are seeking coverage.  As expected, insurers regularly deny claims when they are able to characterize an insured’s conduct as intentional, even when the damage or injury caused was accidental or not intended by …

Read moreA Recent California Supreme Court Decision Clarifies when an Intentional Act with Unforeseen Results is an Accident under a Liability Policy

California Court Affirms Decision Finding Bad Faith Where Insurer Interprets Policy Against Insured’s Interests

On August 31, 2017, the California Court of Appeal discussed a variety of topics touching upon important matters in insurance “bad faith” litigation in Pulte Home Corp. v. Am. Safety Indemnity Co., 14 Cal.App.5th 1086 (Aug. 31, 2017). In this blog, we discuss the case in detail as well as the potential benefits the opinion …

Read moreCalifornia Court Affirms Decision Finding Bad Faith Where Insurer Interprets Policy Against Insured’s Interests

California Court of Appeal Emphasizes Just How Broad the Duty to Defend Is, which Includes Suits Alleging Even Rape

A liability insurer’s duty to defend its insured against lawsuits is extremely broad, much broader than its duty to indemnify its insured for a judgment entered against it.  That has been the law in California for decades.  But just how broad is the duty to defend?  Does it extend to civil lawsuits alleging the insured …

Read moreCalifornia Court of Appeal Emphasizes Just How Broad the Duty to Defend Is, which Includes Suits Alleging Even Rape

General Liability Insurer Has No Duty to Defend Massage Therapist’s Alleged Sexual Assault

General liability insurers and their agents often lure commercial clients with grandiose promises of coverage for business operations, but upon receiving a notice of a claim, interpret their policy exclusions liberally to limit what they consider covered business operations so as to deny coverage.  A recent case from the California Court of Appeal, Baek v. …

Read moreGeneral Liability Insurer Has No Duty to Defend Massage Therapist’s Alleged Sexual Assault

Policyholder Wins Handed Down in Insurance Decisions. Daily Journal Publishes McKennon Law Group PC Article.

The February 10, 2014 edition of the Los Angeles Daily Journal featured Robert McKennon’s article entitled:  “Policyholder Wins Handed Down in Insurance Decisions.”  In it, Mr. McKennon discusses six insurance decisions handed down in California and federal courts in 2013 that were favorable to policyholders. The article includes a discussion of Zhang v. California Insurance …

Read morePolicyholder Wins Handed Down in Insurance Decisions. Daily Journal Publishes McKennon Law Group PC Article.

The Reasonable Expectations of the Covered Party, Even an Additional Insured, Determines the Interpretation of Ambiguous Policy Language

In California, courts have long held that where a policy provision is ambiguous because it is susceptible to multiple interpretations, the reasonable expectation of the covered party governs.  But which parties’ objectively reasonable expectations should govern where there are both a named insured and an additional named insured claiming coverage?  In its significant decision in …

Read moreThe Reasonable Expectations of the Covered Party, Even an Additional Insured, Determines the Interpretation of Ambiguous Policy Language

Insurers Have a Duty to Defend at the Outset of Litigation Even If a SIR Has Not Been Exhausted

Insurers providing general liability insurance cannot shirk their duty to defend insureds at the outset of litigation by relying on self-insured retention (SIR) provisions in those policies unless the policies expressly and unambiguously make the insurer’s duty to defend contingent upon the SIR.  So held the Fourth District Court of Appeals in American Safety Indemnity …

Read moreInsurers Have a Duty to Defend at the Outset of Litigation Even If a SIR Has Not Been Exhausted

Insurer’s General Reservation of Rights Does Not Entitle Insured to Cumis Counsel

In a recent ruling, the California Court of Appeal held that an insurer’s general reservation of rights to deny coverage of damages outside its policy does not create a conflict of interest with the insured, such that the insured in entitled to Cumis counsel.  The decision in Federal Insurance Co. v. MBL, Inc. __ Cal. …

Read moreInsurer’s General Reservation of Rights Does Not Entitle Insured to Cumis Counsel

Insurers Forfeit Their Protections Under Civil Code Section 2860 (Cumis Statute) When They Fail to Meet Their Duty to Defend Obligations

If you want to read an important case on Cumis counsel and the consequences to insurers who fail to fulfill their obligations relating thereto, we have one for you.  J.R. Marketing LLC v. The Hartford Cas. Insurance Co., __ Cal.App.4th __ (May 17, 2013).  This case has a lot to offer: Cumis counsel, attorneys’ fees, …

Read moreInsurers Forfeit Their Protections Under Civil Code Section 2860 (Cumis Statute) When They Fail to Meet Their Duty to Defend Obligations

Get the Answers and Assistance You Need

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
McKennon Law Group Logo

Address: 20321 SW Birch St. Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92660

Phone: 800-682-4137

We also have offices in Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco.

mckennon-map