CNA Casualty of California v. Seaboard Surety Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that allegations that the insured filed “false, frivolous and sham counterclaims ... raised at least the possibility of liability under the malicious prosecution coverage” in the insurer’s policy
• holding that there was a potential for coverage when the policy period began in November 1969 and the underlying complaint challenged a course of conduct beginning in 1966, because no dates were alleged for the specifically listed wrongful acts
• holding that there was a potential for coverage when the policy period began in November 1969 and the underlying complaint challenged a course of conduct beginning in 1966, because no dates were alleged for the specifically listed wrongful acts
• holding that there was a potential for coverage when the policy period began in November 1969 and the underlying complaint challenged a course of conduct beginning in 1966, because no dates were alleged for the specifically listed wrongful acts
• recognizing in coverage context that malicious prosecution claim under California law requires prior termination of an earlier proceeding
• finding that an allegation of “false, frivolous and sham counterclaims” raised “at least the possibility of liability under the malicious prosecution coverage” contained in the insurance policy at issue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).