Cunningham

Cunningham v. Universal Underwriters

Bad Law
120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 162·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4179·2002 Daily Journal DAR 6010·98 Cal. App. 4th 1141·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4753
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 2002D038121California5,322 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haller, J.

Cunningham Enterprises, Inc. (Cunningham), sued its liability insurer, Universal Underwriters (Universal), alleging Universal breached its duty to defend Cunningham in an action brought by a third party. After Cunningham and Universal each moved for summary judgment, the court denied Universal’s motion, granted Cunningham’s motion, and entered judgment in Cunningham’s favor for $197,837.59 plus costs. Universal appeals.

We conclude the undisputed facts establish the absence of a potential for coverage under the relevant insurance policies and therefore Universal had no duty to defend Cunningham in the underlying action. Thus, the trial court erred in granting Cunningham summary judgment and in denying Universal’s summary judgment motion. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand for the court to enter summary judgment in Universal’s favor.

Factual Summary

This case concerns whether Universal had a duty to defend Cunningham in an action brought by Steven Beus and his limited liability company (collectively Beus). Beus’s complaint alleged the following:

In April 1996, Beus met with a real estate agent representing Cunningham regarding potential sites for an Isuzu…

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.