Earle

Earle v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

Good Law
935 F. Supp. 1076·97 Daily Journal DAR 3623·1996 WL 467256·1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12426
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 12, 1996No. C 95-20205 JWCalifornia3,313 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Ware, J.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Court has before it the cross-motions of the parties for summary judgment. Based upon all pleadings filed to date, as well as on the oral argument of counsel, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion and GRANTS Defendant’s motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Eyvind and Joan Earle (“the Earles”) filed this action in state court, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for an alleged tortious breach of a liability insurance policy. The Earles claim that Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State Farm”) wrongfully refused to pay The Earles’ defense costs in the underlying state court litigation. Defendant removed the action to federal court. This case arises out of a commercial lawsuit against the Earles in the Monterey Superior Court which involved several claims, including one for defamation. The Earles first tendered the defense to Defendant in August 1994, after the jury rendered a verdict against the Earles in July 1994.

In support of their cross-motions, the parties have filed an “Agreed Statement of Facts” in which they state that they seek resolution of the…

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.