Street Surfing, LLC v. Great American E&S Ins. Co.

Year: 2014
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 12-5531

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 the absence of any such potential.” As such, UP argued in its brief that the plaintiff’s advertising injury coverage should be triggered due to reasonable inferences and in light of the facts presented. UP also argued that equitable estoppel should apply due to the circumstances surrounding the insurer’s initital denial of coverage and waiver of exclusions and defenses.

UP’s brief was authored pro bono by Eric J. Schindler, Esq., of the Schindler Law Group


The information presented in this publication is for general informational purposes and is not a substitute for legal advice. If you have a specific legal issue or problem, United Policyholders recommends that you consult with an attorney. Guidance on hiring professional help can be found in the “Find Help” section of United Policyholders does not sell insurance or certify, endorse or warrant any of the insurance products, vendors, or professionals identified on our website.

Date: June 6, 2023