Legal Opinion · Dissent

A.B.S. Clothing Collection, Inc. v. Home Insurance

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 19, 1995No. B077598Published

1Dissent

WOODS (Fred), J., Dissenting.

Contrary to the majority opinion, I do not view this appeal as presenting an issue of first impression. For decades, courts, including those in California, have consistently held that insurance contracts are subject to the ordinary rules of interpretation. (See e.g., Bank of the West v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1264 [10 Cal.Rptr.2d 538, 833 P.2d 545].) If contractual language is clear, it governs without regard to the insured’s subjective understanding about the terms of coverage. (Id.., at p. 1265; Bettis Rubber Co. v. Kleaver (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Bank of the West v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Producers Dairy Delivery Co. v. Sentry InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Columbia Heights Motors, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  4. Hackethal v. National Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1987
  5. Penalosa Cooperative Exchange v. Farmland Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1990

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

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

Powered by the Exa API