Legal Opinion

Tremaine v. Phoenix Assurance Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 1, 1935No. Civ. 9689PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSturtevant, J.

The plaintiff sued to recover on several insurance policies. The defendants denied certain allegations contained in the complaint and each company pleaded two affirmative defenses, concealment and that the barge insured was not seaworthy. As to the first affirma tivc defense the trial court found the facts as alleged by the defendants. As to the. other affirmative defense it found the probative facts but did not find on the ultimate fact. Continuing it made conclusions of law in favor of the plaintiff. At this time the defendants contend that the judgment should be reversed and that the trial…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. General Acc. Etc. Corp. v. Indus. Acc. Com.California Supreme Court · 1925
  2. California Reclamation Co. v. New Zealand InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
  3. Hamblet v. City Ins. Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1888
  4. Hart v. British & Foreign Marine InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Paton v. WesterveltThe Superior Court of New York City · 1850

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Honeycutt v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  2. Reliance Insurance v. McGrathDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1987
  3. Honeycutt v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.California Court of Appeal · 2018
  4. Union Bank v. WendlandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976

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

Powered by the Exa API