Appeal Court Decision 3

Appeal Court Decision

Cross-defendant, the insured, challenged the interpretation of his automobile policy in the Superior Court of Alameda County (California) in its judgment that defendant, the insurer, was under no duty to defend him or to provide coverage for injuries to plaintiffs, his children.

Overview: business attorneys

Cross-defendant was the "named insured" under an automobile liability insurance policy written by defendant insurer. Plaintiffs, the minor children of cross-defendant, were "additional insureds" under the policy. While plaintiffs were passengers in the insured automobile driven by cross-defendant, they were injured in an accident. The trial court ruled in favor of defendant, and cross-defendant and plaintiffs appealed the judgment that defendant was under no duty to defend cross-defendant or to provide coverage for injuries to plaintiffs. The court affirmed as to plaintiffs but reversed and remanded as to cross-defendant. The court held, on the facts and the insurance policy of the case, that defendant was obligated as a matter of law to furnish cross-defendant a defense against the claims of plaintiffs.

Outcome

The court held that defendant insurer was obligated as a matter of law to furnish cross-defendant, its named insured, a defense against the claims of plaintiffs, the additional insureds. The judgment was affirmed as to plaintiffs but reversed and remanded as to cross-defendant.