Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cale v. Transamerica Title Insurance

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 19, 1990No. C005350Published

1DissentSims, J.

I respectfully dissent.

Transamerica advised Cale that his loss could not be determined until he completed nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings. Cale did what Transamerica requested. His foreclosure left him with the extinguishment of his lien, the elimination of further remedies to collect his note, and property nobody else was willing to buy. Transamerica then told him he was still not damaged.

1 think Transamerica was right the first time. For reasons that follow, I believe the foreclosure sale made out a prima facie case of damage and loss to Cale which was unrebutted on summary judgment, so…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Producers Dairy Delivery Co. v. Sentry InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Roseleaf Corp. v. ChierighinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Cornelison v. KornbluthCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Lawrence v. Chicago Title InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
  5. Ralph C. Sutro Co. v. Paramount Plastering, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1963

6 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