Reece

Integon National Insurance Company v. Reece

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 20, 20191:18-cv-01192California7,649 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

14 This is an insurance coverage dispute between Plaintiff Integon National Insurance Company

15 (“Integon”) and Defendants Billy Reece, Amber Reece (the “Reeces”), and C.N., a minor, by and through

16 his guardian ad-litem Callie Nielsen (“C.N.”) (collectively “Defendants”). The dispute concerns coverage

17 for claims asserted against the Reeces by C.N. in an action filed in March 2018 and currently pending in

18 California Superior Court for the County of Kern. On September 4, 2018, Integon brought this diversity

19 jurisdiction action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 against the Reeces, and also named C.N., who is the

20 plaintiff in the state court action. ECF No. 1. Integon alleges one claim against Defendants seeking

21 declaratory relief, asking the Court to find that Integon has no duty to defend and no duty to indemnify

22 the Reeces in the state court action based on the homeowner’s insurance policy’s motor vehicle exclusion.

23 The Reeces filed a counterclaim for (1) declaratory relief as to whether the state court action against the 24 Reeces is covered by the policy and whether Integon is required to provide them with independent 25 good faith…

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.