Legal Opinion
Troost v. Estate of DeBoer
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 2, 1984No. Civ. 29639PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KAUFMAN, J.
Defendant Estate of Edward R. DeBoer (DeBoer) appeals from a judgment on a directed verdict in favor of plaintiff Philip G. Troost, individually and doing business as Troost Hay Sales (Troost).
Facts
Basically the facts are undisputed.
Defendant Edward R. DeBoer was a licensed insurance agent. In 1974, DeBoer solicited insurance business from Troost. Troost told DeBoer he wanted $1 million of coverage for his company. DeBoer placed insurance for Troost with Aetna Life & Casualty Company for which Troost was an authorized agent. Aetna issued a primary policy with defined limits…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Estate of LancesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Reichert v. General Insurance of AmericaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Continental Casualty Co. v. Zurich InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Goodley v. Wank & Wank, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1976
- Patent Scaffolding Co. v. William Simpson Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1967
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2000
- Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Maryland Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1994
- R & B Auto Center, Inc. v. Farmers Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006
- National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2009
- Chicago Title Insurance v. AMZ Insurance Services, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2010
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.