So, while the court majority essentially supported the insurer, because of Judge Rothchild’s dissention, the exclusion was nullified and the insurer had to cover the claim, right? I’m sorry, I just didn’t see a conclusive explanation in your article anywhere. Thank you in advance for the clarification.
Thank you for this article as it has raised some necessary questions and conserns here in CA for the agency I work for and for our clients.
I have a question, though, because I cannot see a conclusive explanation in your article… Was Judge Rothchild’s dissention from the court majority (essentilly nullifying the exclusion and including the claim within the policy coverage) enough to uphold the claim and require the insurer to pay on the claim?
Thank you in advance for your answer/clarification.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
So, while the court majority essentially supported the insurer, because of Judge Rothchild’s dissention, the exclusion was nullified and the insurer had to cover the claim, right? I’m sorry, I just didn’t see a conclusive explanation in your article anywhere. Thank you in advance for the clarification.
Michael Phares
Hello Steven,
Thank you for this article as it has raised some necessary questions and conserns here in CA for the agency I work for and for our clients.
I have a question, though, because I cannot see a conclusive explanation in your article… Was Judge Rothchild’s dissention from the court majority (essentilly nullifying the exclusion and including the claim within the policy coverage) enough to uphold the claim and require the insurer to pay on the claim?
Thank you in advance for your answer/clarification.
Michael Phares