Legal Opinion

Akin v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 16, 2006No. E038354PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

GAUT, J.

1. Introduction

Plaintiff Jeanne Ruthann Akin filed a complaint for improper rescission against defendant Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London after defendant denied her homeowner’s insurance claims and rescinded her policies. The trial court sustained defendant’s demurrer on the grounds that contract damages were not available in a rescission action and plaintiff’s claim was barred by the one-year limitations period provided in the contract. On appeal, plaintiff argues that she was entitled to seek damages under Civil Code section 1692. Plaintiff also argues that her claim of…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Zelig v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Runyan v. Pacific Air Industries, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Paularena v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
  4. Alder v. DrudisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  5. Abari v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1988

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Scheherezade Sharabianlou v. KarpCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  2. New West Charter Middle School v. Los Angeles Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  3. Li Guan v. Yongmei Hu, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
  4. Emperador v. Prudential Property & Casualty InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
  5. Guan v. HuCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API