Legal Opinion
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Hartle
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 28, 1976No. Civ. 37535PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
EMERSON, J. *
In this action for declaratory relief, plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereafter State Farm) appeals from a judgment which decreed that appellant was obligated to provide coverage to one Bardelmeier as a permissive user of an automobile under a policy issued in favor of respondent Hartle. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The question presented is: Does an owner’s policy of automobile liability insurance provide coverage to the owner, injured while riding as a passenger in her own vehicle? We conclude that no such coverage is provided by…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Continental Casualty Co. v. Phoenix Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1956
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. JacoberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Schwalbe v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Colonial InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
- Farmers Ins. Exch. v. GeyerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Farmers Insurance Exchange v. CockingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
- Jaramillo v. Mercury InsuranceNebraska Supreme Court · 1993
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. AlstadtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
- Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Transport Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 1978
- Interinsurance Exchange v. CampbellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986