Legal Opinion
Oil Base, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 2, 1969No. Civ. 32907PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRoth, P. J.
Appellant, a manufacturer of oil base drilling mud, seeks to recover from respondent Continental Casualty Company (Continental) and respondent Carl H. Beahm, an insurance broker (Beahm), expenses and fees it had reasonably expended in defense of an action brought against it which it claims, should have been defended by Continental.
Effective August 7, 1957, Beahm obtained on behalf of appellant, a general comprehensive liability insurance policy (policy) issued by Continental. It states the risk as follows:
“To pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1966
- Geddes & Smith, Inc. v. Saint Paul Mercuy Indemnity Co.California Supreme Court · 1959
- Arenson v. National Automobile & Casualty InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Union Sugar Co. v. Hollister Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
- Maxon v. Security Insurance of New Haven ConnecticutCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- INA Life Insurance Company v. BrundinAlaska Supreme Court · 1975
- Casey Tibbs, Plaintiff/appellee/cross-Appellant v. Great American Insurance Company, Defendant/appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- Lambert v. Commonwealth Land Title InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Maples v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.California Court of Appeal · 1978
- Hallmark Ins. Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.