Coregis Insurance v. Camico Mutual Insurance

Good Law
959 F. Supp. 1213·97 Daily Journal DAR 10575·1997 WL 128679·1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3161
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaFebruary 10, 1997CV 96-2706 ABC (BQRx)California7,091 words

Opinion

Opinion

Collins, J.

ORDER RE: (1) CAMICO’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY

(2) COREGIS’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT .

Camico’s motion for partial summary judgment and Coregis’s motion for summary judgment came on regularly for hearing before this Court on February 10, 1997. After reviewing the materials submitted by the parties, argument of counsel, and the case file, it is hereby ORDERED that Camico’s motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED and Coregis’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

I. Background

A. Procedural Background

Plaintiff COREGIS INSURANCE COMPANY (“Coregis”) filed a Complaint against Defendants CAMICO MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (“Camieo”) and UR-BACH, KAHN & WERLIN, P.C. (“UKW”) for declaratory relief on April 16, 1996. Co-regis seeks a judicial determination that it is not liable to Camieo for amounts Camieo expended in defending and settling the claims asserted in a now dismissed action entitled Gindi v. London under a policy of Accountants’ Professional Liability Insurance Policy issued by Mt. Airy Insurance Company (“Mt.Airy”) (a predecessor to Coregis) to the accounting firm of UKW. Coregis seeks a judicial declaration that Camieo was and is the only insurance carrier…

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.