Opinion
Page 995a
66 Cal.App.4th 995a OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, Real Party in Interest. FIRST GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, Real Party in Interest. Nos. B118920., B118923. California Court of Appeal, Second District, Third Division September 9, 1998OPINION
THE COURT.
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on August 20, 1998 (66 Cal.App.4th 128), be modified in the following particulars:
On page 38, the first full paragraph [66 Cal.App.4th 155, advance report, last par., lines 2-6], delete the parenthetical "(e.g., suppose petitioners' denial of coverage had been based on such factually disputed contentions as (1) the Schlesingers had failed to pay policy premiums or (2) the conduct of the Schlesingers had resulted in damages which did not occur during the policy period(s) or (3) the Schlesingers had acted intentionally to cause harm to their lessor)" so that the paragraph reads as follows:
This argument would have merit if the issue of coverage depended on an unresolved factual dispute. When coverage depends on an unresolved factual dispute then a potential for coverage exists until the insurer can conclusively establish in a judicial proceeding that there is no coverage. (Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court (1993) 6 Cal.4th 287, 295 [24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467]; Haskel, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 963, 976-977 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 520].)
There is no change in the judgment.