COMMERCIAL UNDERWRITERS v. Superior Court

Good Law
100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 699·84 Cal. App. 4th 181
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 14, 2001B139105California10,150 words

Opinion

Opinion

No appearance for Real Party in Interest Continental Insurance Co.

Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus, Vlahos & Rudy and Linda E. Klamm, San Francisco, for Real Party Arnold Siegel.

No appearance for Respondent.

JOHNSON, J.

This is an insurance coverage dispute among five insurers. The five consolidated petitions present two questions, one procedural and the other substantive. First, did Judge Valerie Baker have jurisdiction to rule Fireman's Fund Insurance Company (Fireman's Fund) and Commercial Underwriters Insurance Company (Commercial Underwriters) did not have a duty to defend in the underlying case, when Judge Hugh C. Gardner III had ruled, just two weeks earlier, all the defendant insurers did have such a duty? Second, which ruling regarding coverage was correct? We hold Judge Gardner was correct in finding potential coverage based on Abigail Adams's alleged "bodily injury" caused by a potentially covered "occurrence." However we hold Judge Gardner erred in finding Commercial Underwriters and Fireman's Fund had a duty to defend because we find coverage was barred by the "business pursuits" exclusions in their policies (though not by the "employee" exclusion in Royal Insurance…

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.