After waiting over three years since granting review in State of California v. Continental Insurance Co. (previously discussed here) the Supreme Court of California heard oral arguments in the case yesterday morning.  This highly anticipated case touches on many important insurance coverage issues; principally how liability is allocated across multiple successive policies, and whether the limits of successive policies may be “stacked.”
Continue Reading Supreme Court of California Hears Arguments in State of California v. Continental Insurance Co.

Adequate preparation is essential for any mediation, and mediations involving insurance coverage issues are no exception.  Whether the focus of the mediation is the insurance coverage dispute itself, or whether the insurer is attending a mediation of the underlying action (with an expectation that it will fund any settlement), the insured can and should take

Global warming litigation continues, but President Obama’s new environmental policies likely will change its path.  Insureds should consider their risks in light of these new policies to determine whether their present insurance programs provide adequate coverage.

We have previously discussed coverage issues arising out of global warming litigation.  Click HereClick Here  One of

As discussed in our March 13 post, the California Supreme Court issued its much awaited decision in State of California v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, in which California sought insurance coverage for court ordered environmental remediation costs at the Stringfellow Acid Pits.  In addition to reaffirming the concurrent proximate cause rule, the Court

On Monday, March 9, 2009, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in State of California v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London et al., S149988.  The Court ruled on numerous issues, all of which were decided favorably for insureds.  This particular blog post focuses on the Court’s reaffirmation of the concurrent proximate cause rule in

This week, the California Court of Appeal issued a new decision regarding the “stacking” of policy limits: State of California v. Continental Insurance Company, No. E041425 (Super. Ct. No. 239784).  As the Continental court explained, “stacking” generally refers to “treating multiple policies that apply to a single loss as cumulative – as a ‘stack’

The Supreme Court heard argument today in this case, involving the Stringfellow site. Two main issues were argued. First, what is the relevant “discharge” for purposes of the pollution exclusion’s “sudden and accidental” exception: if contaminants were placed in pits intentionally, but escaped accidentally, does the sudden and accidental exception to the pollution exclusion apply? 

One issue currently before the California Supreme Court is the issue of allocation between covered and uncovered damages where pollution at a site is partly caused by gradual pollution and partly caused by a "sudden and accidental" event. The first case to address this, Golden Eagle Refinery Co. v Associated International Ins. 85 Cal.