United States District Court, N.D. California
March 9, 2004.
BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON, Plaintiff
VIGILANT INS. CO., Defendant
The opinion of the court was delivered by: SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge
In accordance with the Court's Order of March 9, 2004, judgment is
IT IS SO ADJUDGED.
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY
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
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.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.