Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 1907–2002 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence1987Paul Fire & Marine, supra, 161 Cal.App.3d at p. 1203, fn. 1 .) *1317 Here, the policy contained the standard comprehensive general liability endorsement that the “company will pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of A. bodily injury or B. property damage to which the insurance applies . . . .” 4 Similar phrases have been “uniformly interpreted as referring to liability ‘ex delicto’ as distinguished from ‘ex contractu’ ” (Fireman’s Fund Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Fireman's Fund Insurance v. City of Turlockgreen2 sentences1987Co. v. City of Turlock (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 988, 995 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 796 ]); thus the policies have been held to cover tort but not contract liability. 1987Co. v. City of Turlock (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 988, 995 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 796 ]); thus the policies have been held to cover tort but not contract liability. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hedtcke v. Sentry Insurance
green
1 sentence2002Co., supra, 326 N.W.2d at p. 736 , fns. omitted.) This language did not make clear “whether the obligations of the insured are joint or several.” (Id. at p. 740.) Accordingly, the court concluded the language was ambiguous and interpreted the policy “as not barring an innocent insured from recovering under the policy merely by virtue of the fact that another insured intentionally caused the damage to the insured property.” (Ibid.) The other two cases cited in Erlin-Lawler—California Ins. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Old Saucelito Land & Dry Dock Co. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co.
green
1 sentence1982That in case of difference of opinion as to the amount of loss or damage, such difference shall be submitted to the judgment of two disinterested and competent men, mutually chosen (who in case of disagreement shall select a third), whose award shall be conclusive and binding on both parties.” ( 66 Cal. at p. 255 .) After loss, a difference arose as to the amount of loss. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Sharp v. Scottish Union & National Insurance
green
2 sentences1936In Sharp v. Scottish Union etc. Co., 136 Cal. 542 [ 69 Pac. 253, 615 ], the policy contained a clause limiting the insurance of the insured’s interest only when such interest was sole and unconditional. 1936In Sharp v. Scottish Union etc. Co., 136 Cal. 542 [ 69 Pac. 253, 615 ], the policy contained a clause limiting the insurance of the insured’s interest only when such interest was sole and unconditional. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Iowa Life Insurance v. Lewis
green
1 sentence1907Co. v. Lewis, 187 U. S. 335 , [23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 126], the policy contained a clause similar to the one referred to in the policy in this case, restricting the power of the agents of the company in the matter of *719 waiving forfeitures. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.