Continental Casualty Co. v. Phoenix Construction Co.
California Supreme Court
1DissentCarter, J.
I dissent.
I agree that the Transport insurance covered Mason and Oilfields but do not agree that the Continental insurance did not cover Oilfields and Mason. The majority opinion holds that Mason and Oilfields are not covered by Continental because of an endorsement on the Continental policy which it says excludes the operation of automobiles.
Oilfields and Phoenix were engaged in a joint venture. Continental issued a policy to Phoenix as the named insured. The policy was mainly concerned with coverage of liability arising out of the operation of automobiles. At the time the policy was issued…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- See v. North American Accident InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Pac. Heating & Ventilating Co. v. Williamsburgh City Fire Ins. Co. of BrooklynCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Pendell v. Westland Life InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Bayley v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.California Supreme Court · 1899
- In re the Estate of NelsonNew York Surrogate's Court · 1934
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.