Legal Opinion · Dissent

Catholic Mutual Relief Society v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Decided August 27, 2007No. S134545Published

1Dissent

*375CORRIGAN, J., Dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.210 unambiguously provides for discovery of reinsurance policies, by including “any agreement under which any insurance carrier may be liable to . . . indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment.”1 The majority detects an ambiguity in the “satisfy the judgment” term, because a reinsurer is “derivatively” rather than “directly” liable. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 370.) However, the Legislature has chosen terminology that expressly includes derivative liability. The obligation to “indemnify or…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. California Teachers Ass'n v. Governing Board of Rialto Unified School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Wilcox v. BirtwhistleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Seaboard Acceptance Corp. v. ShayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  4. National American Insurance v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's LondonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
  5. Pettie v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960

7 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