.... Download Free For Value.
Part One of this post left us in the case of Montrose Chem. Corp. v. Superior Court, 25 Cal. App. 4th 902, 908-09, 31 Cal. Rptr. 2d 38, 42, 94 C.D.O.S. 4313, 94 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7922 (2d Dist. 1994). For your ease of reference, here is a highlighted copy: Download Montrose Chem. Corp. v. Superior Ct. (Cal. 2d DCA 1994).HIGHLIGHTED FOR WEB LOG. Specifically, the outline of factual issues announced in that case for Insurance DJA's is so long that it takes two posts to hold it. The list of factors is provided in full here. Before continuing, the reader should bear in mind that the Montrose case involved questions of Insurance Coverage for alleged environmental contamination. That should be kept in mind. The Court's outline can be adapted easily to other Insurance DJA's outside the area of environmental contamination. The list of factors is in full as follows: To decide whether it is now appropriate to set the indemnity [i.e., coverage] issues for trial, the trial court must determine: (1). Which of the underlying contamination actions are still pending? (2). Of those that are still pending, what issues remain to be decided and when will that happen? (3). Which defenses to coverage (whether pleaded as affirmative defenses or raised by general denials) do each of the carriers intend to pursue as to each of the underlying actions? (4). What facts have to be determined to reach the merits of the carriers' defenses? (5). What other facts, if any, are relevant to the determination of prejudice? (6). Who has the burden of proof? Since the carriers are pushing for a prompt trial date, is it their burden to prove that Montrose will not be prejudiced? Or does Montrose's request for an indefinite stay impose upon it the burden of proving prejudice? A word from this decision about attorney bickering. Although Montrose on the one hand, and the carriers on the other hand, filed many supplemental briefs and other pleadings that they said affected Insurance Coverage, the Courts said that the information they provided was "too scanty to permit meaningful evaluation at this point. Moreover, whatever one says, the other disputes. " The Courts need information, not bickering. "Then and only then can the court determine whether the issues overlap and make the type of detailed findings need for meaningful appellate review." Please Read The Disclaimer.
Comments