Desert Mountain Properties Limited v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
Year 2010
Court Arizona Supreme Court
Case Number CV-10-0339-PR
Issue
  • Commercial General Liability
State
  • Arizona

The issue is whether contract-tort distinction should apply to control coverage under a standard form commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy and what is the intended scope of the contractual liability exclusion in a CGL policy.

Related Docs
Author This brief was written pro bono by Stanley G. Feldman, Michael N. Poli and David L. Abney.
Related Cases
General Refractories Corp. vs. First State Insurance Company
Year: 2005
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
Case Number: 05-4708
Issue:
  • Commercial General Liability
State:
  • Pennsylvania

The issue on appeal in this case primarily impacts commercial policyholders. A lower court granted an insurer’s motion and dismissed a policyholder’s case because they did not sue every possible insurer that had even a remote connection to the underlying claim. If the holding is…
Henkel Corporation vs. Lloyd’s of London
Year: 2002
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S0982427
Issue:
  • Commercial General Liability
State:
  • California

The fundamental characteristic of a general liability policy (CGL) providing coverage on the basis of an occurrence is that the policy never expires even after the policy expires. If the occurrence causing the damage took place in the policy period, coverage should be provided regardless…
Desert Mountain Properties Limited v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
Year: 2010
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Case Number: CV-10-0339-PR
Issue:
  • Commercial General Liability
State:
  • Arizona

The issue is whether contract-tort distinction should apply to control coverage under a standard form commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy and what is the intended scope of the contractual liability exclusion in a CGL policy.
Street Surfing, LLC v. Great American E&S Ins. Co.
Year: 2014
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 12-5531
Issue:
  • Commercial General Liability
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

Under California law, the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify. In fact, under Montrose Chem. Corp. v. Superior Court, 6 Cal. 4th 287, 300 (1993), “the insured must prove the existence of a potential for coverage, while the insurer must establish…