Continental Manufacturing Corp. v. Underwriters at Lloyds London
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
NOURSE, J. pro tem. *
Defendant appeals from a money judgment against it.
The action is one upon a policy of “Hull insurance” issued by the defendant underwriters upon an airplane owned by the plaintiff. By the terms of the policy, defendant agreed “ [t] o pay for any loss of or damage to the aircraft. ’ ’ The policy provided that the underwriters “shall be subrogated in case of payment of any claim under this Certificate ... to all of the Assured’s rights of recovery therefor against persons, corporations, [etc.]. ...” After the issuance of the policy, and while it was in force, the plaintiff…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Estate of PlattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Hartford Fire Insurance v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Meyer v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Basin Oil Co. v. Baash-Ross Tool Co.California Court of Appeal · 1954
- Vinnell Co. v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1959
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Maryland Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1994
- Brinderson-Newberg Joint Venture v. Pacific Erectors, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Great Northern Oil Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1971
- Troost v. Estate of DeBoerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Caza Drilling (California), Inc. v. Teg Oil & Gas U.S.A., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.