“If contractual language is clear and explicit, it governs.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- “If contractual language is clear and explicit, it governs.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- interpreting a nonstandard excess third party liability policy
- “ ‘damages’ has legally and traditionally always been understood as limited to money ordered by a court”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MORENO, J., Concurring.
I concur in the judgment. We were not asked to grant review to decide whether Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 945 (Powerine I) and Foster-Gardner, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 857 , should be overruled, nor were these issues addressed by the parties. (Cf. Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 292 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 116 , 758 P.2d 58 ] [noting the arguments of counsel and amici curiae that our decision in Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1979) 23 Cal.3d 880 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 842 , 592 P.2d 329 ] should be reconsidered].) I therefore concur under compulsion of the principles set forth in those cases. I am uncertain, however, of the soundness of these two decisions. (See Powerine I, supra, 24 Cal.4th 945, 975 (dis. opn. of Kennard, J.); Foster-Gardner, supra, 18 Cal.4th 857, 888 (dis. opn. of Kennard, J.).)