|
1976 DEPUBLISHED Under a liability policy that included employees of the named insured as additional insureds and required the insurer to defend against claims of intentional misconduct, the carrier had an obligation to defend an employee of the named insured against a civil claim for embezzlement brought against him by the named insured; the carrier also had an obligation to defend the employee against a cross-complaint in an action brought by the carrier itself.CitationALVAREZ v COREGIS (Embezzlement Defense) 63 CA4 666 [See: Horace Mann v Barbara B 4 C4 1076, T/AT 5/93; Montrose v Superior Court 6 C4 287, T/AT 1/94; Mariscal v Old Republic 42 CA4 1617, T/AT 4/96; Miller v American Home 47 CA4 844, T/AT 8/96; Ray v Farmers 200 CA3 1411]
|
|
