Legal Opinion
Poland v. Martin
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 21, 1985No. 84-5739PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judge:
The Martins appeal the district court’s decision that they are not entitled to reimbursement under insurance contracts with Lloyds for jewelry stolen from Dorothy Hamill Martin (Hamill). We find that the district court correctly held that Hamill failed to comply with the hotel restriction of the policies, and we therefore affirm.
FACTS
Hamill and Martin insured Hamill’s jewelry, valued at $365,994.00, with Underwriters at Lloyds. The policies included two exclusions from coverage: jewelry stolen from baggage and jewelry stolen from a hotel unless the jewelry was placed…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Reserve Insurance Co. v. PisciottaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. PartridgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Safeco Insurance Co. Of America v. William GuytonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- M/V American Queen v. San Diego Marine Construction Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
- Century Bank v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Marie A. Houston v. National General Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1987
- Comerica Bank v. Lexington Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1993
- John Franceschi, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. American Motorists Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
- American Motorists Insurance v. Allied-Sysco Food Services, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1993
- Oldfield v. Athletic CongressCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.