Legal Opinion

Neal v. State Farm Insurance Companies

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 31, 1961No. Civ. 19148PublishedCited by 116 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTobriner, J.

While we must resolve every ambiguity against an employer insurance company which drafted a contract of employment, or so-called “contract of adhesion,” for engagement of insurance salesmen, we cannot uphold the salesman’s claim for additional compensation here. We can find neither an ambiguity in the contract nor a basis for the claim.

Appellant and respondent Neal (hereinafter called appellant) and appellants and respondents State Farm Insurance Companies on behalf of the other named appellants and respondents (hereinafter called respondents) object to a decision which interprets the terms…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Maguire v. Hibernia Savings & Loan SocietyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Narver v. California State Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  3. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. DempsterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  4. Lagomarsino v. San Jose Abstract & Title InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  5. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. HobbsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1954

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

3Cited by116 opinions

  1. Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Badie v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  4. Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Madden v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976

111 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