Opinion

Brown v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance

  • 93 F. App'x 143
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed
Mar 17, 2004
Status
Published
Author
Reinhardt
On the bench
Reinhardt
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 10.0%

The opinion

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge,

dissenting.

I dissent. California’s duty to defend coverage is far broader than my colleagues in the majority appear to recognize. All that is necessary is that the facts could support a claim; a specific covered remedy need not be pled. See Montrose Chemical Co. v. Super. Ct., 6 Cal.4th 287, 296 , 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467 , 861 P.2d 1153 (1993). Moreover, Brown’s receipt of the property from her brother is not asserted to be intentional and, under California law, may constitute an occurrence. See St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct., 161 Cal.App.3d 1199, 1202-03 , 208 Cal.Rptr. 5 (1984).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.