Legal Opinion

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Grisham

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 20, 2004No. C045912PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

DAVIS, Acting P. J.

“The cat will mew, and dog will have his day.” (Shakespeare, Hamlet, act V, scene 1.) Here, Dwayne Vandagriff’s dog elected to have his day by biting Robert A. Grisham’s leg after escaping from Vandagriff’s parked pickup truck. In this resulting insurance coverage action, plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) obtained a judgment declaring that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Vandagriff, its insured, for injuries sustained by Grisham.

In this appeal by Grisham, we resolve the issue of whether Vandagriff’s auto liability insurance…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. PartridgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Acceptance Insurance v. Syufy EnterprisesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
  3. Bareno v. Employers Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  4. Entz v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New YorkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
  5. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Civil Service Employees InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. CO. v. GrishamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API