# Brown v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · March 17, 2004 · 93 F. App'x 143

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8423512

## Case

- **Full name:** Dorothy Anne BROWN, Plaintiff—Appellant v. HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant—Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 17, 2004
- **Citations:** 93 F. App'x 143
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Reinhardt
- **Judges:** Reinhardt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8423512

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8423512. Public record. Not legal advice.