Appellant benevolent association challenged a decision from the Superior Court of Alameda County (California), which granted summary judgment in favor of respondent insurer in appellant’s action alleging bad faith breach of insurance contract, breach of fiduciary duties, misrepresentation and fraud, and breach of duties under Cal. Ins. Code § 790.03.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. provides information on pre money vs post money valuation
A horse jockey was injured during a training session and filed suit against members of appellant benevolent association. Appellant previously purchased a public liability insurance policy and represented to its members that the policy included liability for accidents occurring on the racetrack. Members tendered their defense to an insurer, who refused to provide a defense. Members filed a cross claim against appellant, alleging that in its official publications appellant had misrepresented the extent of coverage provided in the policy. Appellant tendered the defense to respondent insurance company who denied coverage and refused to provide a defense. Appellant settled the claim and filed a complaint against respondent for bad faith breach of the contract and for failure to indemnify or to defend. Respondent contended that there was no triable issue of material fact as to the existence of coverage under the insurance policy. Affirming the grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent, the court held that the policy for personal injury or property damage did not provide coverage for the defense or indemnity of the cross complaints against appellant.
The court affirmed the decision of the trial court that granted summary judgment in favor or respondent insurer on appellant benevolent association’s complaint for bad faith insurance contract, as there was not triable issue of fact as to coverage under respondent’s policy for personal injury or property damage.