Yi

Essex Insurance v. Yi

Good Law

795 F. Supp. 319·92 Daily Journal DAR 7683·1992 WL 117366·1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7558·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6490

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 30, 1992C-91-4030 FMSCalifornia2,147 words

Opinion

Smith, J.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

This action arises from a dispute between Essex Insurance Company (“Essex”) and its insureds, Frank Yi and Sandra Chu Yi, and Ryan J. De Jesus, a claimant against the Yis. Essex seeks a declaratory judgment that it has no obligation to defend and/or indemnify the Yis in De Jesus’s pending state court action against the Yis for personal injury, general negligence and intentional tort. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332 .

Essex moves for summary judgment seeking a declaration that the insurance policy at issue does not require Essex either to defend the Yis or to indemnify them for claims arising from the underlying action. The Yis and De Jesus counter that this matter is not ripe for declaratory relief. They also seek sanctions against Essex pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Policy

Essex’s policy no. 3AC2779 (the “policy”), issued to the Yis, affords general property and liability insurance for the Yis’ Amusement Center/Video Arcade located at 447 Broadway, San Francisco. The original policy period ran from April 11,1989 to April…

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.