Oliver

Oliver v. Coregis Insurance

Good Law
41 F. App'x 101
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 9, 2002No. 01-16358; D.C. No. CV-99-00293-FCDCalifornia891 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Michael Oliver sued Coregis Insurance Company (“Coregis”) in an effort to recover the amount of a malpractice judgment that he obtained against his former attorney who was insured by Coregis. Oliver appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Coregis. Because there is an ambiguity in the insurance policy that must be construed in Oliver’s favor, we reverse the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

Coregis issued a one-year, claims-made, malpractice insurance policy to Oliver’s attorney that was twice renewed with each renewal policy extending the coverage for a one-year period. Oliver made his claim during the first renewal period, and provided notice of the claim to Coregis during the second. 1 Coregis contends, and the district court held, that the notice was not given during the policy period.

The Coregis insurance policy is ambiguous regarding the question of when notice must be given. At the top of the Declarations page of the renewals, in capital letters, it states that coverage is limited to “CLAIMS WHICH ARE FIRST MADE AGAINST THE NAMED INSURED AND REPORTED TO THE COMPANY WHILE THE POLICY IS IN FORCE.” (emphasis…

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.