photobanner

Case Library

Ernest A. Long ADR publishes monthly Case Studies of important Court decisions in California. Cases are selected on a discretionary basis, bearing on the practice of law in the State Court system. www.courts.ca.gov The Studies are prepared to keep the legal community apprised of developments in the field and are archived here, in our Case Library.
Because our Studies are prepared close to the time of original publication, the cases have yet to receive their official case citations. Opinions remain accessible on the official court website for 120 days, referenced by date. The information conveyed in the Studies is an accurate recounting of the original opinion. The language, quotations and holdings expressed in the Case Studies are not legal authority and should not be presented in court filed documents without first checking the published opinion in the official reports. This page provides access to each of the court decisions, in their original form, that we have reviewed, along with our previously published Case Study. Typically, a PDF copy of the reported decision is attached to our electronically distributed Case Study, and this Case Library provides a compendium of all the opinions we have discussed.
To access a Case Study or a Supreme Court or Appellate Court opinion that was the subject of one of our Case Studies, enter your search terms in the Search box at the right of any page of this website, or go to the Download Case Studies section to scroll through the listings of topics and case names of all Case Studies from January 2008 to the present. The opinions are from the official court website, issued prior to designation of the official reporter citation which is not generated until approximately 90 days after the case is first posted on the court website.

Download Case Studies and Opinions:


Monticello v. Essex – Opinion

Monticello Insurance Company v Essex Insurance Company 5/16 Equitable Contribution; Duty to Contribute to Defense; Duty to Defend Monticello insured Blumenfeld, a general contractor, retained for a project on the Goldman residence. Dana Drywall was a subcontractor on the job. Essex insured Dana Drywall and that policy contained an “additional insured endorsement” naming Blumenfeld. The endorsement was conditional, insuring Blumenfeld only for negligent acts of Dana and only for claims not otherwise excluded. Where no coverage applies to the named insured (Dana) no coverage shall apply to the additional insured. The Goldmans sued Blumenfeld for construction defects. Dana was not…

Monticello v. Essex – Case Study

Monticello Insurance Company v Essex Insurance Company 5/16 Equitable Contribution; Duty to Contribute to Defense; Duty to Defend Monticello insured Blumenfeld, a general contractor, retained for a project on the Goldman residence. Dana Drywall was a subcontractor on the job. Essex insured Dana Drywall and that policy contained an “additional insured endorsement” naming Blumenfeld. The endorsement was conditional, insuring Blumenfeld only for negligent acts of Dana and only for claims not otherwise excluded. Where no coverage applies to the named insured (Dana) no coverage shall apply to the additional insured. The Goldmans sued Blumenfeld for construction defects. Dana was not…

Go Back