Legal Opinion

Artukovich v. St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 19, 1957No. Civ. 21886PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

VALLÉE, J.

The question to be decided is whether either or both of two casualty insurance policies cover a loss sustained by the insured, Artukovich Bros.

St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Company, to be called St. Paul, issued its liability policy in which it agreed to pay on behalf of the insured all sums which insured “shall become obligated to pay by reason of the liability imposed upon the insured by law or contract for damages arising out of occurrences. . . . Bodily injury . . . sustained by any person or persons”; except liability for bodily injury to “any employee of the Insured . . . while…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  2. Washington Gas Light Co. v. District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  3. Grubb v. Public Util. Comm'n of OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  4. Arenson v. National Automobile & Casualty InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Lamb v. Belt Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Geddes & Smith, Inc. v. Saint Paul Mercuy Indemnity Co.California Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Viani v. Aetna Insurance CompanyIdaho Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Jarrett v. AllState InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
  4. Prickett v. Royal Ins. Co. Ltd.California Supreme Court · 1961
  5. Weaver Bros., Inc. v. ChappelAlaska Supreme Court · 1984

22 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