Legal Opinion
Krumme v. Mercury Insurance
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 29, 2004No. A103046, A103742PublishedCited by 46 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KAY, P. J.
Insurance Code section 1704 1 requires that certain kinds of insurance may be sold only by what are known as “appointed agents”— persons for whom the insurer has filed with the Insurance Commissioner a notice of appointment formally designating the person to act on the insurer’s behalf. A trio of related insurers (which for purposes of simplicity will hereinafter be collectively referred to as Mercury) sold policies of automobile insurance within the state through “broker-agents” who are not appointed agents. Suit was instituted to stop this practice, as well as permitting…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
- Ketchum v. MosesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
- Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.California Supreme Court · 1998
- Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- People v. PietersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by46 opinions
- Gary Davis v. Hsbc Bank Nevada, N.A.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Klein v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2012
- Aron v. U-Haul Co. of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- People v. ScottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Chicago Title Insurance v. AMZ Insurance Services, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2010
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.