"If plaintiff acted in self-defense then although he `intended the act,'plaintiff acted by chance and without a preconceived design to inflict injury....[A] n element of wrongfulness or misconduct is connoted by an exclusion provision drafted as in the present case. Such a construction would also be consonant with the public policy provision in section 533 of the Insurance …

We also stated, however, that even an intentional act is not excluded from coverage under section 533 unless the act is done with a " `preconceived design to inflict injury

As for Insurance Code section 533, Royal Globe ignores the "clear line of authority in this state to the effect that even an act which is `intentional'or `willful'within the meaning of traditional tort principles will not exonerate the insurer from liability under Insurance Code section 533 unless it is done with a `preconceived design to inflict injury

If coverage exists for property damage that occurred within the policy period, then denying an insured a defense and indemnity may give the insured the right to settle with a claimant and expose the insurer to liability for the amount of the settlement

Where a policy of insurance provides for the giving of notice of claim'as soon as practicable,''promptly,''immediately'or in similar language, failure to give, or delay in giving, the required notice is not fatal to recovery under the policy, unless the insurer has been prejudiced by such failure or delay

An insurer that wrongfully refuses to defend is liable for damages measured by the expenses incurred by the insured in defending the claim, and by any amount paid in reasonable settlement of the claim, or recovered as a judgment against the insured

Its argument is that the consideration paid by the insured to the injured party for the covenant not to execute fixes the value of the latter's claim for his injury and thus measures the extent of the insurer's liability.

—holding that an element of wrongfulness or misconduct is connoted within exclusion clauses and finding that self-defense falls outside of the literal meaning of the terms

In our opinion, the respondent was under a duty to defend the action at least until such time as it became apparent that Bridge's injury did not arise out of appellants' use of a Miles & Sons truck; not having done so, appellants were entitled to make a reasonable and bone fide compromise of the action against them, and they may now seek reimbursement of this sum and …