Insurance Caselaw Roundup (8/19/08)
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 at 08:56PM The following is a list of recent insurance-related opinions issued in California this year:
Triggering of Section 11580.2 Coverage: Explorer Insurance Company v. Gonzalez , ___ Cal. App. 4th ___ (3rd App. Dist., July 16, 2008) (holding that tortfeasor was not “underinsured” to trigger underinsurance coverage where injured person’s policy provided coverage up to “$100,000 for all damages from bodily injury sustained by any one person in a single accident” and tortfeasor’s policy provided “combined” coverage up to “$100,000 “for all bodily injury and property damage caused by any single accident.”). [Opinion here.]
Rescission of Annuity Contract & Mistake of Fact: Grenall v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., ___ Cal. App. 4th ___ (1st App. Dist., July 25, 2008) (affirming summary judgment in favor of insurer and holding that purchaser of annuity contract could not rely upon her mistaken belief as to her life expectancy as a “mistake of fact” to rescind annuity contract). [Opinion here.]
Binding Effect of Insured’s Discovery Responses on Insurer in Subrogation Action: Great American Insurance Companies v. Gordon Trucking, Inc. , __ Cal. App. 4th ___ (5th App. Dist., July 29, 2008) (reversing summary judgment entered against insurer on the ground, in part, that insured’s factually devoid discovery responses was not binding on insurer for purposes of summary judgment). [Opinion here.]
Estoppel to Deny Benefits under Commercial Policy: City of Hollister v. Monterey Ins. Co. , ___ Cal. App. 4th ___ (6th App. Dist., July 29, 2008) (affirming judgment against insurer and estopping insurer from relying upon condition precedent to obtaining “functional replacement value” benefit (here, requiring that insured enter into contract to repair or replace a building within 180 days after loss) under commercial policy where insurer determined to have failed to cooperate with insured to comply with condition). [Opinion here.]
[Please note that this post does not constitute legal advice and provides only the author's own snapshot view of the cited opinion. No warranties are made as to the accuracy of the author's view of the opinion or as to its legal effect (including, but not limited to, whether it may be subsequently modified, depublished, and/or overruled). The import and applicability of a cited opinion to an actual matter depends upon the specific facts presented and should be reviewed by an attorney.]
Email Article to Friend