Legal Opinion
Tarmann v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 30, 1991No. H006997PublishedCited by 134 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CAPACCIOLI, Acting P. J.
Statement of the Case
Plaintiff Ceil Tarmann appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court sustained without leave to amend defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s (State Farm) demurrer to Tarmann’s fifth amended complaint. She claims her complaint sufficiently pled causes of action for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
Standard of Review
“In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint against a general demurrer, we are guided by long-settled rules. ‘We treat the demurrer as admitting all material…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Silberg v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp.California Supreme Court · 1983
- Roberts v. Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown & BaerwitzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- Bradley v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 1973
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by134 opinions
- Lazar v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2016
- Hill v. Roll International Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2011
- UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Global Eagle Entertainment, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2015
- American Trim, L.L.C. v. Oracle CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004
129 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.