Arata v. California-Western States Life Insurance
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
TAYLOR, P. J.
This appeal by the insurer from a judgment in favor of the widow of the insured for double indemnity death benefits presents a question of first impression in this state as to whether the exclusionary clause of the insurance policy issued by California-Western comes within the “prime or moving cause” rule of Brooks v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 27 Cal.2d 305, 310 [163 P.2d 689], as the court below found. For the reasons set forth below, we have concluded that the judgment must be affirmed.
The matter was submitted to the court below as a question of law on stipulated facts…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. PartridgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Brooks v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Evans v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1946
- Carlson v. New York Life InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1966
- Miller v. Life & Casualty InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1960
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Safeco Insurance Co. Of America v. William GuytonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- Kilroy Industries v. United Pacific InsuranceDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1985
- Bornstein v. J.C. Penney Life InsuranceDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1996
- Khatchatrian v. Continental Casualty Co.District Court, C.D. California · 2002
- Williams v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 1984
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.