Hartford Casualty Insurance v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

Good Law
110 Cal. App. 4th 710·2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 18·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1070·2003 Daily Journal DAR 7912·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6335
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 16, 2003A099012California7,206 words

Opinion

Opinion

Marchiano, J.

Hartford Casualty Insurance Company (Hartford) appeals from a summary judgment in this declaratory relief action against Travelers Indemnity Company (Travelers). The parties ask us to resolve issues involving the effect of certain lease provisions on coverage, the scope of coverage for additional insureds under the tenant’s policy, the relationship of other insurance clauses, and the equitable considerations of competing other insurance clauses. We conclude that the trial court correctly determined that the landlord was an additional insured under the tenant’s Hartford policy and that Hartford’s coverage was not limited to liability directly caused by the tenant, Hartford’s insured. We reject Hartford’s argument that the presumption pertaining to settlement of an underlying action set forth in Peter Culley & Associates v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1484 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 624 ] (Peter Culley) establishes a lack of coverage. Based on the equitable considerations involving the facts of this case and the policy language, we also reject Hartford’s attack on the trial court’s determination that the Travelers policy for the landlord was excess. We, therefore, affirm the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.