Legal Opinion
Gorham Co. v. First Financial Insurance
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 30, 2006No. B183477PublishedCited by 10 opinions
[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WILLHITE, J.
When an insured who has financed the purchase of an insurance policy through a lender defaults, and the lender notifies the insurer under Insurance Code section 673, subdivision (d), that it is exercising the insured’s right to cancel the policy, must the insurer notify additional named insureds of the cancellation? In these circumstances, we hold that neither section 673 nor section 677.2 requires the insurer to provide notice of cancellation to an additional named insured.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Cross-complainant The Gorham Company, Inc. (Gorham), appeals from…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
- California School Employees Ass'n. v. Governing Board of the Marine Community College DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Unzueta v. Ocean View School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Nationwide InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Kotlar v. Hartford Fire InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
3Cited by10 opinions
- People v. ValenciaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
- People v. Y.A.California Court of Appeal · 2016
- Department of California Highway Patrol v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Pacific Business Connections, Inc. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- California Highway Patrol v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.