In an action wherein plaintiff-insurer sought a declaration that defendant’s underlying claims involving unsolicited faxes were not covered by policies as “advertising injury” or “property damage,” summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where the claims asserted in the Illinois actions were not covered by the State Farm policies. Also, defendant’s appeal from an order denying its motion to quash service of the complaint is rejected as such as order not is not appealable where, as here, the party contesting jurisdiction enters a general appearance and litigates the merits.
Read State Farm Ins. Co. v. JT’s Frames, Inc., No. B215457 [HTML]
Read State Farm Ins. Co. v. JT’s Frames, Inc., No. B215457 [PDF]
Appellate Information
Filed January 26, 2010
Judges
Opinion by Judge Manella
Counsel
For Appellant: Law Offices of Ryan G. Richardson, Ryan G. Richardson; Law Offices of Leah Nico and Phillip A. Bock
For Appellee: Robie & Matthai and James R. Robie, Steven S. Fleischman and David J. Weinman
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
