Legal Opinion
Merced Mutual Insurance v. Mendez
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 11, 1989No. F010623PublishedCited by 115 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ARDAIZ, J.
This is an appeal from the entry of summary judgment in favor of respondent Merced Mutual Insurance Company. The trial court determined respondent had no duty to defend or indemnify Mendez for damages caused by engaging in acts of oral copulation and attempted oral copulation allegedly against Ms. Peery’s will. We shall affirm.
On October 16, 1985, Helen and Claude Peery filed a complaint against Bobby Mendez and the County of Merced, claiming Mendez had sexually assaulted Ms. Peery several times at their mutual place of employment. The complaint alleged causes of action for…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1966
- Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1978
- Reserve Insurance Co. v. PisciottaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Producers Dairy Delivery Co. v. Sentry InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
- People v. MayberryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by115 opinions
- Thomas Francis v. Allstate Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2013
- George R. Chamberlain, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Allstate Insurance Company, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- J. C. Penney Casualty Insurance v. M. K.California Supreme Court · 1991
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. New Hampshire Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Collin v. American Empire InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
110 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.