In Montrose Chemical Corporation of California v. Admiral Insurance Co., 3 Cal.App.4th 1511, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 358 (1992), the California Court of Appeal held that the defendant did have a duty to defend.
Summary of this case from Hirschberg v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas.1992.
Reprinted without change in 9 Cal.App.4th 1021, to permit tracking pending reviews by the Supreme Court.
In Montrose Chemical Corporation of California v. Admiral Insurance Co., 3 Cal.App.4th 1511, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 358 (1992), the California Court of Appeal held that the defendant did have a duty to defend.
Summary of this case from Hirschberg v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas.Full title:Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co
Court:Court of Appeal of California
Date published: Jan 1, 1992
2-27-1992 Previously published at 15 Cal.App.4th 975, 20 Cal.App.4th 678, 25 Cal.App.4th 1503, 3 Cal.App.4th…
Harford County v. Harford Mut Ins. Co.1990); U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. Thomas Solvent Co., 683 F. Supp. 1139 (W.D.Mich. 1988); Montrose…