Legal Opinion

McConnell v. Underwriters at Lloyds

California Supreme Court

Decided October 11, 1961No. S. F. 20170PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchauer, J.

In this suit for declaratory relief the contesting insurance companies, as well as their insured, Passetti Trucking Company, Inc., hereinafter called Passetti, seek a determination as to the liabilities of the respective companies with respect to claims for personal injuries made against the insured. We have concluded that the trial court erred in holding that the only coverage was that provided by the policy issued by appellant Underwriters at Lloyds of London, hereinafter called Lloyds, and that the judgment should be reversed for further proceedings in accordance with the views hereinafter…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Continental Casualty Co. v. Phoenix Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1956
  2. Estate of PlattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  3. American Automobile Insurance Co. v. Republic Indemnity Co.California Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Pauline v. FitzpatrickCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  5. American Automobile Insurance v. Seaboard Surety Co.California Court of Appeal · 1957

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Reserve Insurance Co. v. PisciottaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Continental Casualty Co. v. Zurich InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Community Redevelopment Agency v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.California Court of Appeal · 1996
  4. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Sequoia InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
  5. Reserve Insurance Company v. StaatsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1969

27 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