Westerfeld v. New York Life Insurance
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court in Bank, and in the opinion rendered in Department Two.
1Opinion of the Court
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] This case was decided in Department, the opinion being written by Mr. Commissioner Britt. A rehearing was granted solely because it was thought by some members of the court that the complaint stated a cause of action for damages for deceit — it having been held in the Department opinion that it did not. Upon mature consideration we think the decision rendered in Department is right, and the opinion is adopted as the opinion of the court in Bank, except as it may…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Farnum v. Phoenix InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Piedmont, Etc. Life-Ins. Co. v. Ewing, Etc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Kahn v. Traders InsuranceWyoming Supreme Court · 1893
- Giddings v. Insurance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Harnickell v. . New York Life Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1888
3Cited by44 opinions
- Sime v. MaloufCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Neet v. HolmesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Cal. Farm & Fruit Co. v. Schiappa-PietraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Iverson v. Metropolitan Life Etc. Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Taylor v. HopperCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.