Hameid

Hameid v. National Fire Ins. of Hartford

Good Law
114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843·94 Cal. App. 4th 1155
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 10, 2002G026525California2,947 words

Opinion

Opinion

RYLAARSDAM, Acting P.J.

Plaintiff Mohammed A. Hameid sued defendant National Fire Insurance for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, alleging defendant unreasonably refused to provide a defense under a policy it had issued. Defendant obtained summary judgment on the ground there was no duty to defend as a matter of law. Plaintiff appeals from the summary judgment, asserting the court erred in granting defendant's motion, denying his motion for summary adjudication, and striking punitive damages from his complaint.

Defendant had a duty to defend plaintiff under the advertising injury provision of the policy. Thus, the judgment is reversed. We also order the trial court to grant plaintiffs motion for summary adjudication as to the duty to defend. The court's ruling on the remainder of plaintiffs motion for summary adjudication is affirmed because there are triable issues of fact. Finally, the complaint alleged sufficient facts to support a claim for punitive damages, and we reverse the order striking that claim.

Since November 1998, plaintiff has owned and operated Salon T'Shea, a beauty salon, located near Bellezza Salon/Day Spa, owned by…

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.