§Why CasetextPricing

Mayer Hoffman Mccann, PC v. Camico Mutual Insurance Company

MOTION for Summary Judgment

19 Cited authorities

  1. Jackson v. County of Los Angeles

    60 Cal.App.4th 171 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 370 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the doctrine of judicial estoppel should apply when: " the same party has taken two positions; the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true); the two positions are totally inconsistent; and the first position was not taken as a result of ignorance, fraud, or mistake."

  2. Chicago Title Insurance v. AMZ Insurance Services, Inc.

    188 Cal.App.4th 401 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 141 times
    Holding that for ostensible agency to arise from the silence of the principal, the principal must know that the ostensible agent is holding himself out as having agency authority

  3. Mission Viejo Emergency Med. Assoc. v. Beta Healthcare Grp.

    197 Cal.App.4th 1146 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 83 times
    Noting that under the holding in Concepcion the "[g]eneral state law doctrine pertaining to unconscionability is preserved unless it involves a defense that applies 'only to arbitration or that derive[its] meaning from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is at issue'"

  4. Mercury Ins. Co. v. Pearson

    169 Cal.App.4th 1064 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 80 times
    Affirming dismissal of vicarious liability claim against insurer; holding "mere allegation" of agency insufficient

  5. Paper Savers, Inc. v. Nacsa

    51 Cal.App.4th 1090 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 86 times
    Holding that broker's duties do "not include responsibility for ensuring the insured has adequate coverage to protect against all eventualities"

  6. Chase v. Blue Cross of California

    42 Cal.App.4th 1142 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 61 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Chase v. Blue Cross of California, 42 Cal.App.4th 1142 (1996), the California Court of Appeal for the First District indicated (without reference to Prudential) that an insurer may be estopped from asserting a statutory or contractual right even if it had no subjective intent to mislead: "An insurer is estopped from asserting a right, even though it did not intend to mislead, as long as the insured reasonably relied to its detriment upon the insurer's action."

  7. Century Surety Co. v. Crosby Ins., Inc.

    124 Cal.App.4th 116 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 40 times
    Holding broker liable to insurer where he submitted application with false information on it and he knew or should have known that disclosure would have resulted in rejection of application

  8. Westrick v. State Farm Insurance

    137 Cal.App.3d 685 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 43 times
    Holding insurance company's agent may be liable for his negligent failure to accurately apprise an insured of his policy terms upon request; insured alleged that agent was negligent in failing to inform him that a commercial truck would not be covered under his existing passenger car policy when the insured sought assurances that it would be

  9. Shupe v. Nelson

    254 Cal.App.2d 693 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 52 times
    In Shupe v. Nelson, 254 Cal.App.2d 693, 62 Cal.Rptr. 352 (Cal.Ct.App. 1967), the California Court of Appeal held that subsequent purchasers of property had standing to seek reformation of a deed to provide access to a roadway.

  10. Gillis v. Sun Ins. Office, Limited

    238 Cal.App.2d 408 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965)   Cited 38 times
    Affirming finding that a defunct corporation named as the insured held an insurable interest where “[the insurer] intended to insure the property in question; there was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the insured; there was no increase of hazard on the part of the insurance company on account of the error in the name of the insured or because of the merger; the management remained the same; and the insurer accepted and retained the premium payments”

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 337,668 times   161 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 3399 - Generally

    Cal. Civ. Code § 3399   Cited 369 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth when a contract may be revised

  13. Section 1577 - Mistake of fact

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1577   Cited 215 times
    Defining "mistake of fact" as "a mistake, not caused by the neglect of a legal duty on the part of the person making the mistake, and consisting in ... [a]n unconscious ignorance or forgetfulness of a fact past or present, material to the contract; or ... [b]elief in the present existence of a thing material to the contract, which does not exist, or in the past existence of such a thing, which has not existed"