November 2014 LACBA MCLE Test and Answer Sheet

Test No. 240: Cover Me

To access the article related to this test, please click here.
  
Instructions for Obtaining MCLE Credit

The Los Angeles County Bar Association certifies that this activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 1 hour. To apply for credit, please follow the instructions.

1. Study the CLE article.

2. Answer the test questions by marking the appropriate boxes. Each question has only one answer.

3. Photocopies of this answer sheet may be submitted; however, this form should not be enlarged or reduced. Mail the answer sheet and the $20 testing fee ($25 for non-LACBA members) to:

Los Angeles Lawyer
MCLE Test
P.O. Box 55020
Los Angeles, CA 90055

Make checks payable to Los Angeles Lawyer.

4. You can also fill in the test form and submit it directly to LACBA by clicking "Submit." To submit your test answers online you will need to pay by credit card. After submitting your answers you will be presented with a screen requesting payment information. This information will be submitted in a secure mode which will allow you to safely transmit your credit card number over the Internet. If you prefer not to pay by credit card, please print this answer sheet and submit your responses by regular mail.

5. Within six weeks, Los Angeles Lawyer will return your test with the correct answers, a rationale for the correct answers, and a certificate verifying the CLE credit you earned through this self-assessment activity.

6. For future reference, please retain the CLE test materials returned to you.


 

Test Sheet
 



  
Mark your answers to the test by clicking next to your choice.  All questions must be answered.  Each question has only one answer. This test is worth 1 hour of credit.*

1. Under the horizontal exhaustion doctrine, all primary and excess policies for a given period or party must exhaust before the primary or excess policies of another period or party may trigger.


2. Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc. v. Pylon, Inc., is often cited for the concept that express indemnity trumps "other insurance" clauses because express indemnity is the result of bargained-for rights and obligations between parties.


3. Reliance National Indemnity Company v. General Stair Indemnity Company explores a complex priority-of coverage dispute arising from a crowd surfing injury at a rock concert.


4. Subrogation is the right of an insurer to recover from a party primarily responsible for a liability by stepping into the shoes of an insured.


5. Subrogation is a form of relief only available between insurers who share the same layer of coverage as to the same insured.


6. According to Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, even if the factual predicates necessary to operate express indemnity are not established by a trial court, a reviewing court may use record evidence to establish those predicates.


7. In Travelers v. American Equity Insurance Company, the court resolved the coverage dispute by looking only to the insurance policies and by refusing to enforce the express indemnity provisions at issue.


8. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company is the first California case to subsume the reasoning of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. RLI Insurance Company.


9. Compared to an excess insurer, a primary insurer charges a higher premium for assuming a greater risk.


10. In Continental Casualty Company v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company, the court expanded the application of express indemnity provisions, citing the priority of established rules governing the application of primary, as opposed to excess, coverage.


11. In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. RLI Insurance Company, the claim underlying the priority of coverage dispute arose from the sale of deli meats. .


12. In California, the majority rule is:


13. In Continental Casualty Company v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company, the insurance profiles of the parties were atypical because Continental had an umbrella policy rather than an excess policy.


14. Insurers covering different risks, including different layers of coverage, must rely on subrogation.


15. Factual determinations of the active or sole negligence of a party are important in priority of coverage disputes because the operation of express indemnity may turn on those determinations.


16. In Travelers v. American Equity Insurance Company, the court labels the following as "bad public policy and clearly inconsistent with equitable considerations":




17. The ability of a reviewing court to determine indemnity rights of insured entities when a trial court has not made the requisite findings of fact is significant in construction defect litigation because a vast majority of disputes are resolved well before a trial court may make any findings of fact.


18. In Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, the court cites with approval the proposition of Travelers v. American Equity Insurance Company that express indemnity between two insureds cannot be adjudged unless those insureds are parties to the priority of coverage action.


19. In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. RLI Insurance Company, the court applied the vertical exhaustion doctrine to avoid circuity of litigation.


20. The reasoning of Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc. v. Pylon, Inc., applies to priority-of-coverage disputes between two primary insurers but not between primary and excess insurers.


Before clicking the Submit button, please verify that all questions have been answered. An error message will appear if not all questions are answered.

* The Los Angeles County Bar Association has been approved as a continuing legal education provider of Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California. This self-assessment activity will qualify for Minimum Continuing Legal Education legal ethics credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of one hour.