Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance v. Western Pacific Roofing Corp.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ZEBROWSKI, J.
The trial court summarily named an insurer as an additional judgment debtor on the judgment in this case. Although the insurer insured a party to this action, the insurer itself was not a party and no basis appears on which it could be summarily named as a judgment debtor. We therefore reverse.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
In 1988, the Department of Water Resources contracted to have its Pearblossom Pumping Plant expanded. In 1991, as the expansion work progressed, a fire occurred, causing extensive damage. Prior to any litigation, an “Interim Funding Agreement”…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Windsor v. McVeighSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co.California Court of Appeal · 1999
- Levander v. Prober (In re Levander)Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- Baar v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Estate of GoldbergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Bell v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Monarch Healthcare v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Sutter Health Uninsured Pricing CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Hearn Pacific Corp. v. Second Generation Roofing, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2016
- Canaan Taiwanese Christian Church v. All World Mission MinistriesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.