Revesz v. Excess Insurance
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SCHWEITZER, Acting P. J.
Plaintiff, a jewelry salesman, procured a “salesman’s floater” insurance policy from each defendant insurance company, insuring him against certain losses under stated conditions. Following the theft of jewelry from his automobile, plaintiff made demand on defendants for payment. Defendants denied liability. Plaintiff thereupon filed the instant action; by separate answers defendants denied coverage under the facts of the claimed loss on the grounds that their respective policies provided coverage for loss of jewelry from an automobile only while the insured was…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1966
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. FlyntCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
- Cocking v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Phil G. Ruvelson, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
- Royce Furs, Inc. v. Home InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1968
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- E.M.M.I. Inc. v. Zurich American InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- JMP Associates, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1997
- American Stone Diamond, Inc. v. Lloyds of LondonDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1996
- Equity Diamond Brokers, Inc. v. Transnational InsuranceOhio Court of Appeals · 2003
- Star Diamond, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, LondonDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1997
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.