Appellant lawyers sought review of a judgment rendered by the Superior Court of San Diego County

Procedural Posture

Appellant lawyers sought review of a judgment rendered by the Superior Court of San Diego County (California) that granted summary judgment to appellee insurer and state compensation insurance fund in appellants' action for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and other claims.

Overview

Plaintiff in an underlying action sued appellant lawyers for wrongful termination and defamation. Appellants requested that appellee insurer and state insurance fund defend them in the action. Appellees refused to defend. Appellants filed a complaint against appellees for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Appellees filed motions for summary judgment. Appellee insurer contended it had no duty to defend because its policy excluded coverage for personal injuries due to termination of employment or employment-related practices. Appellee state insurance fund contended its policy excluded coverage for the intentional conduct involved. The court found there were no triable issues of material fact and, based on the policies and applicable law, California litigation lawyer appellees had no duty to defend appellants in plaintiff's action. The court granted summary judgment to appellees. The reviewing court affirmed. Under language of appellee insurer's policy, appellee insurer had no duty to defend. Appellants failed to show that appellee state insurance fund had any potential for coverage under its policy giving rise to a duty to defend.

Outcome

The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to appellee insurer in a breach of contract action because the language in appellee insurer's policy excluded claims brought by plaintiff in the underlying action against appellants. The court affirmed summary judgment as to appellee state insurance fund because appellants failed to show that there was any potential for coverage under the policy.

Appellant lawyers sought review of a judgment rendered by the Superior Court of San Diego County (California) that granted summary judgment to appellee insurer and state compensation insurance fund in appellants' action for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and other claims.

The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to appellee insurer in a breach of contract action because the language in appellee insurer's policy excluded claims brought by plaintiff in the underlying action against appellants. The court affirmed summary judgment as to appellee state insurance fund because appellants failed to show that there was any potential for coverage under the 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.