Nojoto: Largest Storytelling Platform
Download Nojoto

Install App Get upto ₹ 100 Cash

Overview: cal. civ. code § 1942.5 https://califor

Overview: cal. civ. code § 1942.5 https://california-business-lawyer-corporate-lawyer.com/caci-california-civil-jury-instructions/california-jury-instruction-caci-4322-affirmative-defense-retaliatory-eviction-engaging-in-legally-protected-activity-civ-code-%C2%A7%E2%80%891942-5d/ HOLDINGS: [1]-The trial court properly determined the uninsured motorist coverage in an excess insurer's umbrella policy did not apply to plaintiff, who was the insured's daughter from a prior marriage. Because plaintiff was not living in the same household as the insured, plaintiff was not an "insured" under the excess insurer's endorsement. Therefore, by the endorsement's plain language, uninsured motorist benefits were not payable to plaintiff; [2]-An exception to the rule against coverage by estoppel was inapplicable because plaintiff was not an insured under the excess insurer's uninsured motorist endorsement and the excess insurer did not defend any action against her; [3]-Because plaintiff was not entitled to coverage by estoppel and her complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to justify reformation, the trial court properly denied leave to amend. Outcome Judgment affirmed.
Overview: cal. civ. code § 1942.5 https://california-business-lawyer-corporate-lawyer.com/caci-california-civil-jury-instructions/california-jury-instruction-caci-4322-affirmative-defense-retaliatory-eviction-engaging-in-legally-protected-activity-civ-code-%C2%A7%E2%80%891942-5d/ HOLDINGS: [1]-The trial court properly determined the uninsured motorist coverage in an excess insurer's umbrella policy did not apply to plaintiff, who was the insured's daughter from a prior marriage. Because plaintiff was not living in the same household as the insured, plaintiff was not an "insured" under the excess insurer's endorsement. Therefore, by the endorsement's plain language, uninsured motorist benefits were not payable to plaintiff; [2]-An exception to the rule against coverage by estoppel was inapplicable because plaintiff was not an insured under the excess insurer's uninsured motorist endorsement and the excess insurer did not defend any action against her; [3]-Because plaintiff was not entitled to coverage by estoppel and her complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to justify reformation, the trial court properly denied leave to amend. Outcome Judgment affirmed.
anneetyner2760

Anne E. Tyner

New Creator