Legal Opinion

Continental Casualty Co. v. Royal Insurance of America

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 26, 1990No. A038773PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

HOLMDAHL, J.

An excess carrier sued a primary carrier for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair claims practices. The excess carrier sought to recover sums paid on behalf of the insured, after the primary carrier allegedly rejected a reasonable settlement offer within the primary policy limits. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the excess carrier and the primary carrier appeals. The primary carrier asserts the trial court made a series of evidentiary and instructional errors.

The judgment is affirmed.

Statement of Facts

Royal Insurance Company of America…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Comunale v. Traders & General InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. CompaniesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Royal Globe Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  4. California Shoppers, Inc. v. Royal Globe Insurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1985
  5. Signal Companies, Inc. v. Harbor Ins. Co.California Supreme Court · 1980

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. American Centennial Insurance Co. v. Canal Insurance Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Twin City Fire Insurance v. BurkeArizona Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Pruyn v. Agricultural InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  4. Hamilton v. Maryland Casualty Co.California Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Diamond Heights Homeowners Ass'n v. National American InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API