Hansten

Allstate Insurance v. Hansten

Good Law
765 F. Supp. 614·91 Daily Journal DAR 7327·1991 WL 101130·1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7934
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 30, 1991C-90-3027-JPVCalifornia1,063 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vukasin, J.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Allstate Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment was scheduled to be heard on April 25, 1991. After a review of the briefs, this court considered it appropriate to submit the motion on the pleadings pursuant to Local Rule 220-1, and now GRANTS the motion.

INTRODUCTION

Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”) moves for summary judgment that it has no duty to defend or to indemnify its insured, Mr. and Mrs. Hansten (the “Han-stens”) against a suit filed by Mr. and Mrs. Wedekind (the “Wedekinds”) in the Superi- or Court of the State of California (the “state court action”). The complaint in the state court action (the “Wedekind Complaint”) alleges that the Hanstens committed a series of violations in connection with the sale of a home to the Wedekinds.

The Hanstens tendered the defense of the state court action to Allstate and demanded that Allstate indemnify them for any liability resulting therefrom. Allstate accepted the defense temporarily and reserved the right to contest its obligation to defend or indemnify the Hanstens at a later date.

FACTS

The Hanstens built a house with Albert Burgess, a…

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.