Legal Opinion
Sandoval v. Mercury Insurance Group
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 27, 1991No. D010641PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BENKE, J.
Introduction
In this case an insured told one of his employees not to drive a truck. The insurer contends the employee therefore did not have permission within the meaning of Insurance Code section 11580.1, subdivision (b)(4).
We agree with the insurer.
Statement of Facts
A. Underlying Action
Plaintiff and appellant John E. Sandoval III is the owner of a landscape maintenance business. On the morning of September 14, 1984, two of Sandoval’s employees, Del Camp and Vince Campbell, 1 were working at one of Sandoval’s job sites. Earlier in the day Vince had driven a 1959 Ford truck…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- D'AMICO v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Souza v. CortiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Metz v. Universal Underwriters InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Jurd v. Pacific Indemnity Co.California Supreme Court · 1962
- Norris v. Pacific Indemnity Co.California Supreme Court · 1952
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Paul BAKER; Heidi Baker, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Marquez v. Enterprise Rent-A-CarCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Roebbelen Construction, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002