Legal Opinion

Ray v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 5, 1988No. C000037PublishedCited by 49 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

EVANS, Acting P. J.

Plaintiff" James Ray (Ray) appeals from the judgment following a jury’s general verdict for defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers) on Ray’s breach of contract and related actions.1 Ray asserts prejudicial instructional error and insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The linchpin in Ray’s case is Farmers’s alleged obligation, under the terms of an automobile collision insurance policy, to compensate Ray, after repair of his wrecked car, for the car’s diminution in market value because of its status as a wrecked car. We shall affirm the judgment.

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Parsons v. Bristol Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Gruenberg v. Aetna InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  4. California Shoppers, Inc. v. Royal Globe Insurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1985
  5. Bareno v. Employers Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by49 opinions

  1. Avery v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 2005
  2. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. SchaeferTexas Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Siegle v. Progressive Consumers Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 2002
  4. Schulmeyer v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2003
  5. Carlton v. Trinity Universal Insurance Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2000

44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API