Cobb v. Home & Automobile Insurance
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
REYNOSO, J.
We review the trial court’s determination that, under the facts of this case, the “due and confined to” mechanical failure clause excluded from coverage plaintiff’s damage to his helicopter engine. We affirm the judgment.
1. Stipulated facts
On June 8, 1975, plaintiff was the owner of a 1967 Hiller Helicopter Model FH-1100. On that date there was in full force and effect a policy of insurance issued to plaintiff by defendant providing insurance coverage for liability and hull damage. While in flight the helicopter’s Allison 250-C18B turbine engine failed, causing the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Stevens v. Parke, Davis & Co.California Supreme Court · 1973
- Paramount Properties Co. v. Transamerica Title InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Bezue v. HARTFORD ACC. & INDEM. CO., HARTFORD, CONN.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1969
- Lunn v. Ind. Lumbermen's Mut Ins. Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1947
- Nelson v. United States Fire InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. Associated International Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- Security Mutual Casualty Co. v. O'BrienNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1982
- O'Connor v. Progressive Advanced Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2024