Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Insurance, Robert A. Seligson
Insurance, Robert A. Seligson
Insurance, Robert A. Seligson
Cal Law Trends and Developments
Possibly the most important decision in the insurance field in 1968 involved not the rights and obligations of an insurance carrier per se but rather those of an attorney selected by the carrier to protect and defend its insured. In Lysick v. Walcom, the appellate court held that an attorney who is employed by an insurance company to defend an action arising out of an accident involving an insured represents both the insured and the insurer and owes to both a high duty of care imposed both by statute and the rules governing professional conduct.
Insurance, Robert A. Seligson
Insurance, Robert A. Seligson
Cal Law Trends and Developments
Any discussion of California insurance decisions and developments in the past year must perforce start with the fall of 1966, since 1967 was the year in which the insurance industry was confronted with greatly expanded rules on the duty to defend, the duty to settle within limits and rising above all, like a Colossus sprung from the deep, the tortured decision of Pacific Employers Insurance Company v. Maryland Casualty Company, which threatened to convert policies written for totally different purposes into automobile liability policies at the drop of a hat and with nary a premium.
Hiding Behind Policy: Confusing Compensation With Indemnification, Jennifer A. Emmaneel
Hiding Behind Policy: Confusing Compensation With Indemnification, Jennifer A. Emmaneel
Golden Gate University Law Review
In PPG Industries, Inc. v. Transamerica Insurance CO., the California Supreme Court held that an insurer may not indemnify its insured for a punitive damages judgment in a third party action. Even if the excess judgment is the result of the insurer's bad faith breach of its duty to settle a third party action on behalf of its insured, an insured may not recover if it seeks compensatory damages that include a punitive damages judgment. The California Supreme Court found that to conclude otherwise would violate California's long established public policy precluding indemnification of punitive damages. This Note examines the …
Moradi-Shalal V. Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies: The Overruling Of Royal Globe And Its Ramifications, Randolph Stevenson Hom
Moradi-Shalal V. Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies: The Overruling Of Royal Globe And Its Ramifications, Randolph Stevenson Hom
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note will analyze the reasoning utilized by the Moradi-Shalal court in overruling Royal Globe and also analyze its concomitant effects upon the rights of third party claimants. Third party claimants' alternatives to a Royal Globe action will then be considered, such as third party actions by assignment from the insured, and third party private causes of action against insurers pursuant to California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.
Litigating Incest Torts Under Homeowner's Insurance Policies, Christine Cleary
Litigating Incest Torts Under Homeowner's Insurance Policies, Christine Cleary
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Comment will address insurers' liability for incest torts under standard homeowner's insurance policies. It primarily will examine potential liability in light of the intentional act and household exclusions which are typically contained in homeowner's policies.
Murphy's Law: The Pan Am Corollary, David V. Ainsworth
Murphy's Law: The Pan Am Corollary, David V. Ainsworth
Golden Gate University Law Review
The venerable tension between marine protection and indemnity underwriters and marine cargo risk underwriters has increased materially as the result of a 1977 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. California Stevedore and Ballast Co. (Pan Am). This decision is already breeding litigation, and there will certainly be more to come. Unfortunately, due to a scholastically and technically erroneous reading of the case by some members of the admiralty bar and bench, it is also causing practical problems for carriers and cargo interests alike.