Legal Opinion
Nabisco, Inc. v. Transport Indemnity Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 10, 1983No. Civ. 30260PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CROSBY, J.
In this insurance coverage dispute, the superior court found a Transport Indemnity Company (Transport) policy to be excess and hence no duty by Transport to defend or indemnify Nabisco Company (Nabisco) in an underlying personal injury action.
The facts are essentially undisputed. James J. Berry, a Trans-Con Lines truck driver, sued Nabisco for personal injuries sustained while loading his employer’s vehicle at a Nabisco facility. On the date of the accident, Nabisco was the named insured under Home Insurance Company’s (Home) umbrella excess policy number HEC-4764111, which…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1966
- Signal Companies, Inc. v. Harbor Ins. Co.California Supreme Court · 1980
- Olympic Insurance v. Employers Surplus Lines InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
- Giddings v. Industrial Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 1980
- NATIONAL AMERICAN INS. v. Ins. Co. of N. AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Fu-Kong Tzung Jean Tzung v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, and Does 1 Through 100, InclusiveCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Maryland Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1998
- Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 1997
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Reliance National Indemnity Co. v. General Star Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 1999
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.