From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Darwin Nat'l Assurance Co. v. Rosenthal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 24, 2014
Case No. CV 13-5670 FMO (RZx) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 24, 2014)

Opinion

Case No. CV 13-5670 FMO (RZx)

09-24-2014

DARWIN NATIONAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD M. ROSENTHAL, et al., Defendants.


JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the Court's Order Re: Pending Motion, IT IS ADJUDGED that Darwin National Assurance Company ("Darwin") has no duty to defend or indemnify defendant Richard M. Rosenthal in the Weiss Action because the Business Enterprise Exclusion bars coverage as to Rosenthal; and Darwin has no duty to defend or indemnify defendants in the Weiss Action because the Investment Advice Exclusion bars coverage. The above-captioned action is dismissed with prejudice. Dated this 24th day of September, 2014.

/s/_________

Fernando M. Olguin

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Darwin Nat'l Assurance Co. v. Rosenthal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 24, 2014
Case No. CV 13-5670 FMO (RZx) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 24, 2014)
Case details for

Darwin Nat'l Assurance Co. v. Rosenthal

Case Details

Full title:DARWIN NATIONAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD M. ROSENTHAL, et…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 24, 2014

Citations

Case No. CV 13-5670 FMO (RZx) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 24, 2014)

Citing Cases

Miller Co. v. Goodman

— Where a foreign corporation has a general or special office in this State, or does business through brokers…

Marcus v. Allied World Ins. Co.

But the allegations about attorney conduct in those cases were very different from what is alleged here.…