California Court of Appeal

Reset A A Font size: Print

Transcontinental Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of Pa., G035046

In a coverage dispute between an excess insurer and a primary insurer over the obligation to defend a housing developer in a construction defect case, a holding that excess insurer owed a duty to defend is affirmed over claim that other carriers providing coverage for several subcontractors, and which named the developer as an additional insured, had the duty to defend based on the California rule of "horizontal exhaustion," requiring payment from these primary policies before any excess or umbrella policies could be triggered.

Appellate Information

  • Decided 02/28/2007
  • Published 03/27/2007



  • California Court of Appeal


  • For Appellees:
  • Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith and Jordan Harriman;  Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley, Mark G. Bonino, Redwood Shores, and Michael J. Quinn, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Appellant., Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin, Jerome B. Falk, Jr., and Amy E. Margolin, San Francisco;  Law Offices of Timothy J. Hogan and Timothy J. Hogan for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
Copied to clipboard