Legal Opinion · Dissent

Manufacturers Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Royal Indemnity Company

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided August 14, 1974No. 72-2723Published

1DissentEly, Circuit Judge

It is a fundamental principle of insurance law, now fixed by California statute, that an insurer cannot be held liable unless the insured’s loss is proximately caused by the peril or hazard insured against. California Code of Insurance § 530. Here, however, the majority ignores this principle in order to hold Royal Indemnity (hereinafter Royal) liable for the hypothetical damages of a hazard which occurred but was not the cause of any loss to the insured.

Royal and Manufacturers Mutual (hereinafter Manufacturers) both insured Kaiser against loss of profits caused by on-premises physical…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Elmer Rogers, D/B/A Elmer's Plaza Bowl v. American Insurance Co., and National Fire Insurance Co. Of HartfordCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1964
  2. Pacific Coast Engineering Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  3. General Ins. Co. of America v. Pathfinder Petroleum Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1944
  4. Eisenson v. Home Ins.District Court, N.D. Florida · 1949

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API