Legal Opinion
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Montes-Harris
California Supreme Court
Decided December 7, 2006No. S130717PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BAXTER, J.
Pursuant to rule 29.8 of the California Rules of Court, we granted the request of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for a decision addressing the following question: Does the duty of an insurer to investigate the insurability of an insured, as recognized by the California Supreme Court in Barrera v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. (1969) 71 Cal.2d 659 [79 Cal.Rptr. 106, 456 P.2d 674] (Barrera), apply to an automobile liability insurer that issues an excess liability insurance policy in the context of a rental car transaction?
Subject to our…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Wildman v. Government Employees Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1957
- Barrera v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Metz v. Universal Underwriters InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Telford v. New York Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. AbdullahCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Verdugo v. Target Corp.California Supreme Court · 2014
- Colony Insurance v. Crusader InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Flores v. ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR CO.California Court of Appeal · 2010
- Cal. Casualty Indemnity Exchange v. Downs CA3California Court of Appeal · 2020
- Enterprise Rent-A-Car of L.A. v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2022
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.