Legal Opinion
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Roebbelen Construction, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 5, 2002No. 01-16779; D.C. No. CV-00-02084-EJGPublished
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM ***
Because the parties are familiar with the pertinent facts, we do not state them here.
In order to be covered under the policy’s omnibus clause, Michael Thuleen needed to receive express or implied permission to operate the vehicle from Roebbelen Co., the owner of the car. Baker v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 143 F.3d 1260, 1263 (9th Cir.1998) (applying California law and holding that permission must come from both the owner and initial permittee); Sandoval v. Mercury Ins. Group, 229 Cal.App.3d 1, 9, 278 Cal.Rptr. 533 (1991) (noting that “the cases have never suggested that [the]…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Norris v. Pacific Indemnity Co.California Supreme Court · 1952
- Jordan v. Consolidated Mutual InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- Paul BAKER; Heidi Baker, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Sandoval v. Mercury Insurance GroupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991