Insurance
Aug. 25, 2010
Does 'Remote Act' Equate to No 'Accident'?
When should a "remote" causal act lead to no coverage?
Rex Heeseman
JAMS
555 W 5th St Fl 32
Los Angeles , CA 90013-1055
Phone: (213) 253-9772
Fax: (213) 620-0100
Email: rheeseman@jamsdar.com
Stanford Univ Law School
Rex Heeseman retired from the Los Angeles Count Superior Court bench in 2014. He is at JAMS, Los Angeles. Besides speaking at various MCLE programs, he co-authors The Rutter Group's practice guide on "Insurance Litigation." From 2002 to 2015, he was an adjunct professor at Loyola Law School.
In L.A. Checker Cab Cooperative Inc. v. First Specialty Ins. Co. (2010) 186 Cal.App. 4th 767, the 2nd District Court of Appeal recently affirmed the ruling below in favor of the insurer. Marco Cifuentes sued the driver for assault and battery and his employer, Checker Cab, for negligent supervision. The insurer refused to defend. The court found no coverage for the driver in light of Delgado v. Interinsurance Exch. of Auto. Club of Southern California (2009) 47 Cal.4th 302....
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In