Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON v. VIGILANT INS. CO.

United States District Court, N.D. California


March 9, 2004.

BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON, Plaintiff
v.
VIGILANT INS. CO., Defendant

The opinion of the court was delivered by: SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Court's Order of March 9, 2004, judgment is hereby entered.

  IT IS SO ADJUDGED.

 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
  The cross-motions for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for summary adjudication of issues brought by plaintiff BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON ("Brobeck") and by defendants VIGILANT INSURANCE COMPANY ("Vigilant") and FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY ("Federal") came on regularly for hearing before this Court in Department 11, the Honorable Susan Illston, with David Weiss appearing as attorney for the Page 2 plaintiff, Brobeck, and Ronald F. Remmel appearing as attorney for the defendants, Vigilant and Federal,

  After full consideration of the Stipulated Facts and Documents jointly submitted by the parties, the respective Memoranda of Points and Authorities, and oral arguments of counsel, it appears and the Court finds as follows:

The motion of defendants for summary judgment is granted:
  2. The Campillo actions do not allege a personal injury or advertising injury offense within the ambit of the insuring agreement set forth in policy number 3529-32-90 issued by Vigilant to Brobeck or an advertising injury within the ambit of the insuring agreement set forth in policy number 7961-15-35 issued by Federal to Brobeck. There was no bad faith on the part of Vigilant or Federal in connection with the Campillo actions and no indemnity is owed to Brobeck for any damages awarded in the Campillo actions.

  Furthermore, the cross-motion of plaintiff for summary judgment is denied for the reasons set forth above. IT IS SO ORDERED.

20040309

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.