Brucia

Brucia v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity

Good Law
307 F. Supp. 2d 1079·2003 WL 23320570·2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24704
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 22, 2003C 02-05331 SBACalifornia2,911 words

Opinion

Opinion

Armstrong, J.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Joseph Brucia and Frances Bru-cia’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. 10] and Defendants Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company and Hartford Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 5], Having read and considered the arguments presented by the parties in the papers submitted to the Court, the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without a hearing. The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

This action involves a suit by Plaintiffs Joseph and Frances Brucia against its liability insurer, Defendants Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company and Hartford Casualty Insurance Company (collectively “The Hartford”). Plaintiffs have been sued by Randolph & Hein (“R & H”) and seek to force The Hartford to pay the costs of defending the lawsuit filed by R & H.

A. The Underlying Action

From 1975 through 2000, R & H leased commercial property (“the Property”) from Plaintiffs. (R & H Complaint ¶ 14). In late 1998, the San Francisco Department of Public Health…

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.