Continental Bank v. Phoenix Ins. Co.

10 Citing cases

  1. Mitsui Mfrs. Bank v. Federal Ins. Co.

    795 F.2d 827 (9th Cir. 1986)   Cited 10 times
    Rejecting a policy interpretation which would allow the cause to always be attributed to whatever circumstances made a deposit uncollectible

    Any ambiguity in the contract language is construed against the insurer. See e.g., Century Bank v. St. Paul Fire Marine Insurance Co., 4 Cal.3d 319, 321, 482 P.2d 193, 194, 93 Cal.Rptr. 569, 570 (1971); Continental Bank v. Phoenix Insurance Co., 24 Cal.App.3d 909, 913, 101 Cal.Rptr. 392, 394 (1972); Jones v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., 270 Cal.App.2d 779, 76 Cal.Rptr. 97, 100 (1969). In construing the contract, the court looks to the reasonable expectations of the insured.

  2. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburg, P.A.

    CASE NO. 09-CV-140-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2014)   Cited 2 times

    The "on the faith of" requirement refers to an insured's "complete confidence, belief or trust" in the documents. Continental Bank v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 24 Cal. App. 3d 909, 913 (1972). NU contends that Chicago Title's employees did not take any steps to verify the signatures.

  3. Cohan v. Alvord

    162 Cal.App.3d 176 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 15 times

    The maxim `de minimis non curiat lex' seems to control here. (See Zumbrun v. University of Southern California (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 1, 11 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 499, 51 A.L.R.3d 991]; Continental Bank v. Phoenix Ins. Co. (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 909, 912 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 392].)" ( Halford v. Alexis, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at p. 1032.) However, in Haman v. County of Humboldt (1973) 8 Cal.3d 922 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 617, 506 P.2d 993], the court rejected the legislative classification that discriminated between residents owning fishing boats registered in California and residents owning fishing boats registered in other states.

  4. Halford v. Alexis

    126 Cal.App.3d 1022 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 4 times
    In Halford v. Alexis (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 1022 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 486], the court upheld the constitutionality of the statutory scheme which converted the state vehicle license renewal system from a calendar year system to a staggered year-round system, effective as of the 1976 registration year.

    The maxim "de minimis non curiat lex" seems to control here. (See Zumbrun v. University of Southern California (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 1, 11 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 499, 51 A.L.R.3d 991]; Continental Bank v. Phoenix Ins. Co. (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 909, 912 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 392].) We agree with the observations of the trial court to the effect that "[t]hese inequities were not arbitrary or unreasonable when considered as part of the total year-round registration plan and its objectives . . . which benefited the entire California motoring public."

  5. Beach Comm. Bank v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co.

    635 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2011)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that the measure of the insured's loss “is based on the amount of credit extended”

    St. Paul also relies on United States National Bank in Johnstown v. Reliance Insurance Co., 348 Pa.Super. 30, 501 A.2d 283 (1985), and Continental Bank v. Phoenix Insurance Co., 24 Cal.App.3d 909, 101 Cal.Rptr. 392 (1972), which upheld findings that a bank had not relied on a forgery, but those decisions involved a different procedural posture. Both United States National Bank and Continental Bank held that evidence submitted at a trial was sufficient to support a factual finding that a lender did not rely on a forged guaranty.

  6. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Rli Ins. Co.

    49 F. Supp. 3d 517 (N.D. Ill. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    Bank of Manitowoc, 485 F.3d at 978 (footnote omitted) makes clear that banks have no obligation under that Bond provision to investigate the authenticity of documents: Republic Nat'l Bank of Miami v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 894 F.2d 1255 (11th Cir.1990) and Continental Bank v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 24 Cal.App.3d 909, 101 Cal.Rptr. 392 (1972), both cited by RLI, are simply inapposite. We have stated that “ ‘good faith’ usually establishes a subjective standard,” and pointed out that “[m]any negligent acts are committed with pure hearts and empty heads,” State Bank of the Lakes v. Kan. Bankers Sur. Co., 328 F.3d 906, 909 (7th Cir.2003).

  7. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. RLI Ins. Co.

    Case No. 12 C 3790 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 10, 2014)

    But mere negligence does not defeat coverage under Insuring Agreement E.Bank of Manitowoc, 485 F.3d at 978 (footnote omitted) makes clear that banks have no obligation under that Bond provision to investigate the authenticity of documents: Republic Nat'l Bank of Miami v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 894 F.2d 1255 (11th Cir. 1990) and Continental Bank v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 101 Cal. Rptr. 392 (Cal. Ct. App. 1972), both cited by RLI, are simply inapposite. We have stated that "'good faith' usually establishes a subjective standard," and pointed out that "[m]any negligent acts are committed with pure hearts and empty heads," State Bank of the Lakes v. Kan. Bankers Sur. Co., 328 F.3d 906, 909 (7th Cir. 2003).

  8. Exeter Banking Co. v. N.H. Ins. Co.

    438 A.2d 310 (N.H. 1981)   Cited 9 times
    Construing fidelity policy and concluding that insurer must pay claim based on insured's liability to third party because policy "neither excludes nor limits the [insurer's] liability for indirect losses"

    In construing section (E) of the bankers blanket bond, we note that "[t]he phrase, `on the faith of,' clearly signifies something done `in reliance upon.'" Continental Bank v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 24 Cal.App.3d 909, 913, 101 Cal.Rptr. 392, 394 (1972). In the May 24, 1979, transaction, the plaintiff sold five checks to the Kents; it neither gave value nor extended credit in reliance upon these checks.

  9. First Union v. U.S. Fidelity

    730 A.2d 278 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1999)   Cited 2 times

    Similarly, under Insuring Agreement (E)(1)(e), there is coverage only when the insured extends credit "on the faith of" some evidence of debt. Courts have interpreted the language, "on the faith of," as signifying reliance. See, e.g., Republic Nat'l Bank of Miami v. Fidelity Deposit Co. of Maryland, 894 F.2d 1255, 1263 (11th Cir. 1990); United States Nat'l Bank in Johnstown v. Reliance Ins. Co., 501 A.2d 283, 285 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985); Continental Bank v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 101 Cal.Rptr. 392 (Cal. Ct. App. 1972). Hence, in order for there to be coverage under Insuring Agreement (D)(2) or (E)(1)(e), the insured must demonstrate that it actually relied upon the instructions or advices or the evidence of debt.

  10. U.S. Nat. Bk. in Johnstown v. Reliance Ins. Co.

    501 A.2d 283 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985)   Cited 4 times
    Holding good faith and reliance separate requirements

    Clause E of the policy is a standard clause that is regularly used. See Fields, Bankers Blanket Bonds: What They Cover andWhat They Do Not, Ins.Counsel J. 318; Posey, Recent Trends inClause E Cases — Bankers Blanket Bonds, 33 Ins.Counsel J. 87. See also, Continental Bank v. Phoenix Insurance Co., 24 Cal.App.3d 909, 101 Cal.Rptr. 392 (1972); St. Paul Fire and MarineInsurance v. Leflore Bank and Trust Company, 181 So.2d 913, 254 Miss. 598 (1966). Despite the clause's popularity, the particular problem before us today is unique to Pennsylvania courts.