Legal Opinion · Dissent

Escobedo v. Estate of Snider

California Supreme Court

Decided February 20, 1997No. S052682Published

1DissentMosk, J.

I dissent. I would affirm the Court of Appeal’s judgment in favor of the insured, although on slightly different grounds. I have no quarrel with the majority’s analysis, but as I shall explain, they err in failing to reach the conclusion to which their own reasoning inevitably must lead.

Public Utilities Code section 24361 provides: “No insurance policy meeting the requirements of Section 24350 shall be canceled unless 30 days’ prior notice is given to the department by either the insured or the insurance company.” I agree with the majority that the clause “meeting the requirements of Section…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Holcomb v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API