Total Call Int'l Inc. v. Peerless Ins. Co., No. B212923
In plaintiff's action against its insurance company claiming that it had improperly declined to defend plaintiff in litigation arising out of its advertising activities, trial court's judgment sustaining defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's complaint is affirmed where: 1) the fact that a third party complaint mentions an element of a covered claim does not trigger the duty to defend when the facts known to the insurer, viewed as a whole, establish that no such claim is potentially asserted; 2) there was no potential for policy coverage in view of the nonconformity exclusions, which bars coverage for advertising injury arising out of the failure of goods, products or services to conform with any statement of quality or performance made in the insured's advertisement; and 3) trial court properly sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
Read Total Call Int'l Inc. v. Peerless Ins. Co., No. B212923 [HTML]
Read Total Call Int'l Inc. v. Peerless Ins. Co., No. B212923 [PDF]
Filed January 21, 2010
Opinion by Judge Manella
For Appellant: The Cronin Law Group and Timothy C. Cronin
For Appellee: Lindahl Beck LLP, Kelley K. Beck and Andrew Sperry
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.