State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Ammar
California Court of Appeal
1DissentWork, J.
I dissent:
The issue is not, as generalized by the majority, whether the Legislature could have identified relatives residing in the home of an insured as additional insureds, and by so doing encompass them within the exclusion of section 11580.1, subdivision (c)(5). The simple fact is, the Legislature did not so identify that group, any more than it so identified nonrelatives with whom the insured resides, or the members of the insured’s Saturday night poker club.1 Section 11580.1, subdivision (c)(5), *844was limited to excluding only those persons who fall within the category there named:…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Moyer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Arenson v. National Automobile & Casualty InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Bailey v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Outboard Marine Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- Maryland Cas. Co. v. American Family Insurance GroupSupreme Court of Kansas · 1967
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.