Legal Opinion · Dissent

Spangle v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 29, 2008No. B198340Published

1Dissent

TURNER, P. J., Dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. The insured had no objectively reasonable expectation of coverage under the garage operations provisions of the policy. The relevant coverage language is found in the portion of the policy entitled, “GARAGE COVERAGE FORM.” The pertinent coverage portion of the policy is entitled, “ ‘GARAGE OPERATIONS’—‘COVERED AUTOS’ ” and states, “We will pay all sums an ‘insured’ must pay as damages because of ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to which this insurance applies, caused by an ‘accident’ and resulting from ‘garage operations’ involving the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Bank of the West v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. v. Lawyers' Mutual InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Apple Computer, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1999
  4. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  5. Northland Insurance v. Boise's Best Autos & RepairsIdaho Court of Appeals · 1997

4 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