Legal Opinion
Arocho v. California Fair Plan Insurance
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 28, 2005No. B177188PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
JOHNSON, J.
Plaintiffs Jose and Maria Arocho appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant California Fair Plan Insurance Company (Fair Plan). The Arochos contend the superior court misinterpreted Code of Civil Procedure 1 section 340.9, the Northridge earthquake revival statute, which only applied “to cases in which an insured contacted an insurer or an insurer’s representative prior to January 1, 2000, regarding potential Northridge earthquake damage.” The Arochos contacted their broker, James Stovall of Kosmos Insurance Agency, about earthquake damages shortly after the Northridge…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bialo v. Western Mutual InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- People v. MassicotCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich v. Vigilant InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Migliore v. Mid-Century InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- People v. WhitlockCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Douglas v. Fidelity National InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- People v. SalmorinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Brookside Investments, Ltd. v. City of El MonteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Hughes v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2024