Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company v. Crocker Securities LLC et al
Filing
107
BRIEFING ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman on 12/17/2009. (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2009)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXECUTIVE RISK SPECIALITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff(s), v. CROCKER SECURITIES LLC, et al., Defendant(s). ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. C09-1840 PJH (BZ) BRIEFING ORDER
Plaintiff's motion for default judgment has been referred to me. In reviewing the papers, it appears that plaintiff is However, in
entitled to a declaration of no coverage.
California, the duty to defend is separate from and broader than the duty to indemnify. See Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co.,
65 Cal. 2d 263, 276-277 (1966); Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 6 Cal. 4th 287, 295 (1993)); Amato v. Mercury Casualty Co., 53 Cal. App. 4th 825 (2d Dist. 1997). There do
not appear to be any factual allegations in the complaint nor any authority in the moving papers to support the request for a declaration that the plaintiff had no obligation to defend 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Mr. Green in the proceedings at issue.
If the plaintiff
wishes to obtain a declaratory judgment to this effect, it shall file by December 24, 2009 a supplemental brief of up to 5 pages explaining why it believes it is entitled to such relief. Dated: December 18, 2009 Bernard Zimmerman United States Magistrate Judge
G:\BZALL\-REFS\EXECUTIVE RISK V. CROCKER SEC\BRIEFING ORDER.wpd
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?