Directory Image
This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using our website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

Appellant insured sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court

Author: Attorneyatlaw Magazine
by Attorneyatlaw Magazine
Posted: Jun 25, 2021

Procedural Posture

Appellant insured sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of Ventura County (California), which entered summary judgment in favor respondent insurer on an action for breach of an insurance contract.

Overview

An insurance company sued appellant insured for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. Respondent denied coverage under appellant's insurance policy. Appellant filed suit against respondent alleging causes of action for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of respondent, and found no breach of insurance contract. On appeal, EEOC attorney the court held that respondent had no duty to defend appellant's civil action that charged appellant with participation in a conspiracy of engaging in fraudulent billing practices. The court reached this conclusion because the insurance policy limited coverage to third party claims for bodily injury, and damage to tangible property. The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment entered in favor of respondent.

Outcome

The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment entered in favor of respondent insurer in an action for breach an insurance contract because fraudulent billing practices was not covered in the insurance policy.

The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment entered in favor of respondent insurer in an action for breach an insurance contract because fraudulent billing practices was not covered in the insurance policy.

The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of respondent, and found no breach of insurance contract. On appeal, EEOC attorney the court held that respondent had no duty to defend appellant's civil action that charged appellant with participation in a conspiracy of engaging in fraudulent billing practices. The court reached this conclusion because the insurance policy limited coverage to third party claims for bodily injury, and damage to tangible property. Appellant insured sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of Ventura County (California), which entered summary judgment in favor respondent insurer on an action for breach of an insurance contract. The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment entered in favor of respondent insurer in an action for breach an insurance contract because fraudulent billing practices was not covered in the insurance policy.

About the Author

The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment entered in favor of respondent insurer in an action for breach an insurance contract because fraudulent billing practices was not covered in the insurance policy.

Rate this Article
Leave a Comment
Author Thumbnail
I Agree:
Comment 
Pictures
Author: Attorneyatlaw Magazine

Attorneyatlaw Magazine

Member since: Jun 21, 2021
Published articles: 2

Related Articles