CLARENDON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY v. GENERAL SECURITY INDEMNITY COMPANY OF ARIZONA
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html > <head> <title>CLARENDON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY v</title> </head> <body> <div> <br/> <br/><b >CLARENDON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY v.</b><b > GENERAL SECURITY INDEMNITY COMPANY OF </b><b >ARIZONA</b><b ></b> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/>Filed 3/2/11 Certified for publication 3/30/11 (order attached) <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/>IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA <br/>SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT <br/>DIVISION TWO <br/> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 > <tr > <td width=336 valign=top > <br/>CLARENDON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, <br/> <br/> Plaintiff and Appellant, <br/> <br/> v. <br/> <br/>GENERAL SECURITY INDEMNITY COMPANY OF ARIZONA, <br/> <br/> Defendant and Respondent. <br/> </td> <td width=336 valign=top > <br/> B223566 <br/> <br/> (Los Angeles County <br/> Super. Ct. No. BC407735) <br/> </td> </tr> </table> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of <a href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Los Angeles County</a>. Mary H. Strobel, Judge. Affirmed. <br/> <br/> Law Office of Karen-Denise Lee and Karen-Denise Lee for Plaintiff and Appellant. <br/> <br/> Haight, Brown & Bonesteel, Denis J. Moriarty, Jules S. Zeman and Florence H. Gerlitz for Defendant and Respondent. <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> Clarendon America Insurance Company (Clarendon) filed a complaint for <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">declaratory relief, equitable contribution, and equitable indemnity</a> against General Security Indemnity Company of Arizona as the attorney in fact for General Security Indemnity Company (General Security) after settling an action against Hilmor Development (Hilmor), a company that both Clarendon and General Security had insured during different time frames. General Security cross-complained for declaratory relief and the trial court resolved competing motions for <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">summary judgment</a> in General Security's favor. Clarendon appeals from the final judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment against it. We affirm. <br/><b >CONTENTIONS</b> <br/> Clarendon contends that the trial court incorrectly interpreted the â€