Browne George Ross LLP v. Lexington Insurance

Good Law
138 F. Supp. 3d 1149·2012 WL 12336223·2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191065
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJuly 24, 2012Case No. 2:12-cv-02148-SVW-PLACalifornia2,502 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Wilson, J.

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS ORDER re Motions for Summary Judgment [21, 28]; Plaintiffs Application to File , Response to Reply Brief [38]

I. INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On March 14, 2012, Plaintiff Browne George Ross, LLP filed this action against its former insurer Lexington Insurance Company (“Defendant”), alleging claims for (1) Breach of Contract; and (2) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, based on Defendant’s purported breach of its duty to defend Plaintiff in a malpractice action brought by several of Plaintiffs ‘ former clients. (Dkt.l).

On or about February 22, 2008, Defendant issued Plaintiff a Lawyers Professional Liability Insurance policy, Policy No. 3236926, which provided coverage for negligent acts, errors, and omissions occurring before February 22, 2008, with a five-year extended reporting period. (See Dkt. 10-3, Exh. 4 (“Lexington Policy”)). Endorsement # 1 of the Policy provides:

(Lexington Policy, Endorsement # 001).

Plaintiff -subsequently obtained a Lawyers Professional Liability Insurance policy from Catlin. (George Decl., Exh. 2-(“Catlin Policy”)). The Catlin Policy covered certain acts, errors, and omissions occurring…

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.