Legal Opinion

United Pacific-Reliance Insurance v. Didomenico

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 23, 1985No. A026274PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

HANING, J.

Plaintiff and appellant United Pacific-Reliance Insurance Company (UPR) appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Andrew DiDomenico individually and doing business as Dom’s Shoe Repair, sustaining respondent’s demurrer to appellant’s complaint for declaratory relief as to insurance coverage on the basis of the statute of limitations. Appellant contends the statute of limitations does not bar a declaratory relief action on a contract commenced prior to breach, because the statute of limitations does not begin to run until such a breach occurs. Since it has…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Maguire v. Hibernia Savings & Loan SocietyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. United States Liability Insurance v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Martin v. HendersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Tostevin v. DouglasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  5. Hoover v. GalbraithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Snyder v. California Insurance Guarantee Assn.California Court of Appeal · 2014
  2. In re: Capital Options, LLCUnited States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
  3. Salvador Martin v. Construction Laborer's Pension Trust for Southern CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
  4. Salvador Martin v. Construction Laborer's Pension Trust for Southern CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
  5. Snyder v. Cal. Ins. Guarantee Assn.California Court of Appeal · 2014

1 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