Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Search for legal issues
For help near (city, ZIP code or county)
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location

Total Call Int'l Inc. v. Peerless Ins. Co., No. B212923

Article Placeholder Image
By FindLaw Staff on January 22, 2010 11:55 AM

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]

Appellate Information

Filed January 21, 2010

Judges

Opinion by Judge Manella

Counsel
For Appellant:   The Cronin Law Group and Timothy C. Cronin

For Appellee:   Lindahl Beck LLP, Kelley K. Beck and Andrew Sperry

Find a Lawyer

More Options