Donohoe v. Wilshire Ins. Co.

3 Citing cases

  1. Aas v. Avemco Insurance

    55 Cal.App.3d 312 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 19 times
    In Aas v. Avemco Ins. Co. (1976), 55 Cal.App.3d 312, 319, 127 Cal.Rptr. 192, 196, the court stated, "When the insurer agrees to indemnify the policyholder for `loss by reason of the liability imposed upon him by law' it may take the risk that the law will impose a greater liability than was contemplated at the time of contracting."

    (See Ins. Code, § 11580.1, cf. § 11584. Note, Associated Indem. Corp. v. King (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 470, 472-474 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 190]; Donohoe v. Wilshire Ins. Co. (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 471, 473 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 57]; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Flynt, supra, 17 Cal.App.3d 538, 542-546; and State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra, 9 Cal.App.3d 508, 520-526.)

  2. Contreras v. America

    48 Cal.App.3d 270 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 15 times
    Striking terms that excluded coverage to occupants of a motor vehicle and terms that imposed liability limits lower than the statutory minima

    The legislative intent that policies voluntarily obtained prior to the occurrence of any accident are to be evaluated according to the criteria specified in Insurance Code section 11580.1 has been recognized by the appellate courts. ( Metz v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 45, 51 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 698, 513 P.2d 922]; Associated Indem. Corp. v. King (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 470, 473-474 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 190]; Donohoe v. Wilshire Ins. Co. (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 471, 473 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 57]; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Flynt (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 538, 544-546 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 296]; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 508, 525 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 246]; Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Globe Indem. Co. (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 643, 645 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 28].) In State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra, 9 Cal.App.3d 508, 524-525, the reviewing court points out that section 11580.1 is "a comprehensive enumeration of mandatory and permissible features to be contained in automobile liability insurance policies to be `issued or delivered in this state'"; that "[S]ection 11580.1 bespeaks . . . an intent to stand as the exclusive enumerator of required automobile coverage features before an accident"; and that "Such an intent would inferably confine Vehicle Code sections 16450-16451 to policies posted as proof of financial responsibility after an accident."

  3. Associated Indem. Corp. v. King

    33 Cal.App.3d 470 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 9 times

    " The State Farm decision, recognizing the validity of restrictive endorsements pursuant to Insurance Code section 11580.1, has now been followed in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Flynt, 17 Cal.App.3d 538 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 296] and Donohoe v. Wilshire Ins. Co., 26 Cal.App.3d 471 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 57]. We adopt its reasoning.