Legal Opinion

Fluor Corporation v. Super. Ct.

California Supreme Court

Decided August 20, 2015No. S205889PublishedCited by 49 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J.

We granted review to consider whether Insurance Code section 520 — a statute tracing back to 1872, which was not cited to or considered by this court when we decided Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 934 [129 Cal.Rptr.2d 828, 62 P.3d 69] (Henkel) — changes our determination in that case regarding the enforceability of “consent-to-assignment” clauses in third party liability insurance policies. Under Henkel, the consent-to-assignment clause contained in the insurance policy in the present case would permit the insurer, after a loss…

2Cases cited65 opinions

  1. Wolf v. ColoradoSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. Waller v. Truck Insurance Exchange, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Nga Li v. Yellow Cab Co.California Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Comunale v. Traders & General InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958

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

3Cited by49 opinions

  1. Cal. Building Industry Assn. v. State Water Resources Control Bd.California Supreme Court · 2018
  2. In Re Viking Pump, Inc. and Warren Pumps, LLC Insurance AppealsSupreme Court of Delaware · 2016
  3. United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co.California Supreme Court · 2018
  4. People v. HubbardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2016
  5. People v. ColbertCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019

44 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