Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Howell v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 22, 1990No. A044405Published

1Concurrence

BARRY-DEAL, J., Concurring.

I concur with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of respon*1462dent. I agree that triable issues of fact exist whether the efficient proximate cause of appellant’s loss was a covered peril and whether any insured property was damaged. I also agree that, in this case, the insurer may not escape liability based on a policy exclusion which purports to be effective when an excluded event contributes in any way to a loss, even though the efficient proximate cause of the loss is covered. However, because I do not agree…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Continental Casualty Co. v. Phoenix Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1956
  2. Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.California Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Sabella v. WislerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  4. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Steven M. Martin Peggy D. MartinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
  5. Brooks v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945

25 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