Young's Market Co. v. American Home Assurance Co.
California Supreme Court
Long & Levit and David C. Bogert for Defendants and Respondents.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SULLIVAN, J.
Plaintiff Young’s Market Company appeals from a judgment declaring that the “sue and labor” clause of an insurance policy issued to it by defendant companies did not entitle it to be reimbursed for legal expenses incurred by it in successfully resisting an action by the State of Texas to confiscate a shipment of its liquor.
Plaintiff is a wholesale liquor dealer. Defendant insurance companies *311issued to plaintiff a policy1 of “Multiple Perils Personal Property Insurance” which as here relevant provided coverage “against all risks of physical loss or damage from any cause…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Continental Casualty Co. v. Phoenix Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1956
- Matsuo Yoshida and Chisato Yoshida v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1957
- Reliance Insurance Company v. The Yacht Escapade Ex the Thor II Etc., Reliance Insurance Company v. Howard BondCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1960
- Home Ins. Co. v. Ciconett. Ciconett v. Home Ins. CoCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1950
- Biays v. Chesapeake InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1813
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Garcia v. Truck Insurance ExchangeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
- Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Fibreboard Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1986
- Southern California Edison Co. v. Harbor InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- Grebow v. Mercury InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- RK Mechanical, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of AmericaDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2011
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.