# Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. > California Supreme Court · October 25, 1966 · 65 Cal. 2d 263 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9528853 ## Case - **Full name:** VERNON DARTMOUTH GRAY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent - **Court:** California Supreme Court - **Decided:** October 25, 1966 - **Citations:** 65 Cal. 2d 263; 54 Cal. Rptr. 104; 419 P.2d 168; 1966 Cal. LEXIS 196 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by McCOMB - **Judges:** Tobriner, McComb - **Cited by:** 994 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/9528853 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - stating that an insurer’s duty to defend is “fixed by the facts which the insurer learns from the complaint, the insured, or other sources,” and holding that the insurer had a duty to defend because the facts pled in the complaint would have supported alternate, covered claims… - reasoning that facts known to the insurer and extrinsic to the third party complaint can generate a duty to defend, even though the face of the complaint does not reflect a potential for liability under the policy because pleading rules liberally allow amendment and the third … - finding that an intentional act exclusion did not negate the duty to defend because the insured “might have been able to show ... he did not commit wilful and intended injury, but [instead] engaged only in nonintentional tor-tious conduct” despite the underlying complaint’s “p… - finding a duty to defend when “the facts alleged do fairly apprise the insurer that plaintiff is suing the insured upon an occurrence which, if his allegations are true, gives rise to liability of insurer to insured under the terms of the policy” (internal citations omitted) (… - finding that an intentional torts exclusion did not bar coverage 17 because the allegations allowed for the possibility that the insured acted negligently or in 18 self-defense ## Opinion text McCOMB, J. I dissent. I would affirm the judgment for the reasons expressed by Mr. Justice Fox in the opinion prepared by him for the District Court of Appeal in Gray v. Zurich Ins. Co. (Cal.App.) 49 Cal.Rptr. 271 . --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9528853. Public record. Not legal advice.