Thompson v. Mercury Casualty Company
California Court of Appeal
Hager & Dowling, John V. Hager, Thomas J. Dowling, Joy L. Lim; Horvitz & Levy, Barry R. Levy and H. Thomas Watson for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GAUT, J.
1. Introduction
Mercury Casualty Company’s (Mercury) automobile liability insurance policy contains a provision, “Condition 23,” that limits coverage to the statutorily required minimums for persons using the car with the named insured’s permission. In this declaratory relief action, the trial court found Condition 23 inconspicuous as a matter of law. On appeal, we agree with the trial court and affirm.
2. Factual and Procedural History
For purposes of this declaratory relief action, the parties stipulated to the underlying facts.
At the time of the accident, John Hughlett and…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Crane v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.California Supreme Court · 1971
- National Insurance Underwriters v. CarterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Ponder v. Blue Cross of Southern CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- Jauregui v. Mid-Century InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Farmers Insurance Exchange v. HarmonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Haynes v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- Royal Indemnity Co. v. United Enterprises, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2008
- Dominguez v. Financial Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 2010
- Otay Land Co. v. Royal Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 2008
- Haynes v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.