Powerline Oil Company, Inc. vs. Superior Court of California (Central National Fire Insurance Company)
Year 2002
Court California Supreme Court
Case Number S113295
Issue
  • Coverage
State
  • California

When a policy uses the terms “suit” and “claim” in its “ultimate net loss provision, the insurer must provide coverage for a lawsuit in a court of law and other judicial proceedings.

Related Docs
Author UP's brief was written pro bono by Richard Giller of Weston, Benshoof, Rochefort, Rubalcava & Maccuish, LLP
Related Cases
401 Fourth Street Inc. vs. Investors Insurance Group
Year: 2003
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Case Number: No. 270 MAP 2003
Issue:
  • Coverage
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Since the term “collapse” in the policy is ambiguous and connotes only a substantial impairment of a building’s structural integrity, there must be coverage for “imminent collapse” Court quotes UP’s brief.
Dana Corp. vs. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., et al.
Year: 1996
Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
Case Number: 17171-6-II
Issue:
  • Coverage
State:
  • Indiana
County of San Diego v. Cigna Property and Casualty Company
Year: 2002
Court: California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 1
Case Number: D038707
Issue:
  • Coverage
State:
  • California

Duty of insurance company to cover claims not specifically addressed by court. Companion case to Ace Property.
Fairfield Insurance Co. vs. Stephens Martin Paving
Year: 2003
Court: Texas Supreme Court
Case Number: RP 04-0728
Issue:
  • Coverage
State:
  • Texas

The “all sums” language in a liability policy of insurance should be construed to provide coverage for gross negligence and punitive damages.