Residence Mutual Insurance v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

Good Law
26 F. Supp. 3d 965·2014 WL 2711175·2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81700
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJune 13, 2014No. CV 13-09141-RSWL (AGRx)California6,527 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Ronaldlew, J.

*968 ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [18] AND DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [20]

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff Residence Mutual Insurance Company’s (“Plaintiff’) Motion for Summary Judgment [18] and Defendant Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut’s (“Defendant”) Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [20]. The Court, having reviewed all papers submitted pertaining to these Motions, NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS: The Court GRANTS in part, DENIES in part Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS in part, DENIES in part Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff issued a Homeowners Policy to Michael H. Chu and Susan Chu as the named insureds (“Plaintiffs Policy”). Pl.’s Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law (“Pl.’s SUF”) # 1.

Defendant issued a Commercial General Liability policy to Daeil America Corporation, dba Temeku Hills Golf and Country (“Temeku Hills”) as the named insured (“Defendant’s Policy”). Id. at #2. Mrs. Chu, as a renter or operator of a golf cart at Temeku Hills, was made an additional insured of Defendant’s Policy by the Golf or Country Club Facilities Xtend…

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.