Legal Opinion
Title Ins. Co. v. Comerica Bank-California
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 17, 1994No. H011620PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MIHARA, J.
At issue in this appeal is the applicability and scope of the “impostor rule,” which makes an indorsed check effective if the drawer was induced to issue the check by an impersonator of the payee. (Cal. U. Com. Code, § 3404, subd. (a); Cal. U. Com. Code, former § 3405, subd. (l)(a).) Plaintiff Title Insurance Company of Minnesota contends the trial court erroneously applied this rule in sustaining the demurrer of the drawee bank, respondent Comerica Bank — California (Bank), to plaintiff’s complaint for negligence. We agree that the impostor rule is not applicable under the…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1970
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Sun'n Sand, Inc. v. United California BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- B & P DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. City of SaratogaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Rakestraw v. California Physicians' ServiceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Friedland v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Lewis v. Telephone Employees Credit UnionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- ACS Systems, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- ADVOCATE HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORP. v. Bank One, NAAppellate Court of Illinois · 2004
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.