Legal Opinion

McMillin Scripps North Partnership v. Royal Ins. Co. of America

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 30, 1993No. D014527PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BENKE, J.

In this case the insured under a first party property insurance policy concedes it has not experienced any loss covered by the policy. Nonetheless, the insured argues the insurer should reimburse it for expenses it incurred in determining whether its losses were covered by the policy.

We find nothing on the face of the policy which provides for reimbursement of the investigation costs the insured is seeking. Accordingly, we affirm the summary judgment entered in favor of the insurer.

Factual and Procedural Background

1. 1986 Leak

Plaintiff and appellant McMillin Scripps North…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Rawlings v. ApodacaArizona Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. CompaniesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.California Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Prudential-LMI Commercial Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Buss v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Peggy Greenberg and Pamela Rossmann, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. The Life Insurance Company of VirginiaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999
  3. Gunderson v. Fire Insurance ExchangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  4. Rui One Corp. v. City of BerkeleyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
  5. Frank and Freedus v. Allstate Ins. Co.California Court of Appeal · 1996

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