Search results
Under the trial court's no-stacking ruling (based on FMC Corp. v. Plaisted & Companies, 61 Cal.App.4th 1132 (1998)— later disapproved) the most the State could recover was $48 million. Accordingly, the trial court entered judgment nominally in favor of the State, but in the amount of “$0.”
11 paź 2017 · A recent California Court of Appeal decision clarifies that vertical exhaustion applies to an excess policy that only specifies a retained limit, even where the insured subsequently purchases insurance to cover the retained amounts.
Continental Insurance, S170506, the California Supreme Court applied the “all sums-with-stacking” rule to allow the State of California to “stack” the policy limits of several successive insurance policies to recover for continuous environmental property damage incurred over a twelve year period.
25 wrz 2013 · In this 2013 decision, the Court of Appeal acknowledged the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Continental Insurance, and addressed an issue concerning excess insurance coverage, but then effectively disregarded the Supreme Court’s “stacking” rule.
9 sie 2012 · The California Supreme Court issued its decision in the State of California v. Continental Insurance case on August 9. In a unanimous opinion, written by Justice Ming Chin, the Court held that the policy language at issue provides for “all sums” allocation and permits stacking of policy limits.
16 mar 2009 · S170560 - STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. CONTINENTAL INSURANCE. Hearing Date: May 29, 2012 to May 31, 2012. Subscribe to this Case. Defendants, Cross-Complainants and Appellants, Continental Insurance Company, et al., and Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Respondent, Employers Insurance of Wausau, Reply Brief.
9 sie 2012 · The California Supreme Court issued its decision in the State of California v. Continental Insurance case on August 9. In a unanimous opinion, written by Justice Ming Chin, the Court...
