State Farm Life Insurance v. Pearce
California Court of Appeal
1Concurrence
FROEHLICH, J., Concurring.
I concur in the ruling of the majority, which is to reverse the summary judgment and remand the case for further proceedings and trial, if appropriate. I do not join in the reasoning of the majority opinion because I believe it is misplaced in its emphasis on a search for the hypothetical, presumed, or to be discovered donative intent of the deceased insured. Rather, I believe the review of evidence should focus on an attempt simply to prevent enrichment of the murderer by reason of her crime. If there is no evidence of such enrichment through execution of the plain…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1966
- Beck v. West Coast Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
- Boyer v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.California Supreme Court · 1929
- Protex-A-Kar Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 1951
- Meyer v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.