Barrera

Barrera v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Good Law

1969 Cal. LEXIS 278·71 Cal. 2d 659·79 Cal. Rptr. 106·456 P.2d 674

Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 8, 1969S.F. 22313California18,107 words

Opinion

dissent Opinion

McCOMB, J.

I dissent. I would affirm the judgment.

lead Opinion

Tobriner, J.

Plaintiff sued State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance' Company (hereinafter “State Farm”) to compel payment of a judgment obtained against Anthony and Sandra Alves. Plaintiff obtained the judgment against the Alveses on the ground that plaintiff, while a pedestrian, was injured by.Mrs. Alves’s negligent driving. Plaintiff alleged and urged thé enforceability at the time of the accident of an automobile liability policy issued by State Farm to the Alveses. State Farm denied the validity of the policy, and filed , a cross-complaint seeking a declaration that the policy was void ah .initio because issued in reliance on a material misrepresentation by Mr. Alves. In opposition, plaintiff contended that State Farm was estopped to rescind the policy six months after the accident because State Farm led Mr. Alves to believe that he was insured and because State Farm negligently failed to discover- within a reasonable time the misrepresentation in the application tendered one and one-half years prior to the accident.

The trial court found that State Farm issued the automobile liability policy in reliance on a material misrepresentation, that rescission was therefore justified, and that…

Opinion

Plaintiff sued State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereinafter "State Farm") to compel payment of a judgment obtained against Anthony and Sandra Alves. Plaintiff obtained the judgment against the Alveses on the ground that plaintiff, while a pedestrian, was injured by Mrs. Alves's negligent driving. Plaintiff alleged and urged the enforceability at the time of the accident of an automobile liability policy issued by State Farm to the Alveses. State Farm denied the validity of the policy, and filed a cross-complaint seeking a declaration that the policy was void ab initio because issued in reliance on a material misrepresentation by Mr. Alves. In opposition, plaintiff contended that State Farm was estopped to rescind the policy six months after the accident because State Farm led Mr. Alves to believe that he was insured and because State Farm negligently failed to discover within a reasonable time the misrepresentation in the application tendered one and one-half years prior to the accident.

The trial court found that State Farm issued the automobile liability policy in reliance on a material misrepresentation, that rescission was therefore justified, and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.

Parties

EVA BARRERA
Plaintiff
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
Defendant

Judges

Tobriner
McComb
Traynor
Peters
Mosk
Burke
Sullivan

Cites (46)

59 Cal. 2d 97
48 Cal. 2d 31
23 Cal. Rptr. 592
46 Cal. 2d 423
160 Cal. App. 2d 290
235 N.W. 403
85 Okla. 171
Soc., supra,
139 Cal. App. 577
49 Cal. 2d 647
248 Cal. App. 2d 690
233 N.Y. 236
58 Cal. 2d 552
56 Cal. 2d 583
69 Cal. 2d 850
70 Cal. 2d 223
193 Cal. 197
44 Cal. 2d 772
52 Cal. 2d 437
122 Cal. App. 2d 519
9 Cal. 2d 103
128 A.L.R. 1150
65 Cal. 2d 263
58 Cal. 2d 862
16 Cal. 2d 626
160 Iowa 19
368 P.2d 821
132 Wash. 378
233 U.S. 389
104 Cal. 402
216 Cal. 698
26 Cal. 2d 412
85 Kan. 97
57 Cal. 2d 381
241 Cal. App. 2d 558
92 N.J. Super. 92
131 Cal. App. 2d 416
86 Cal. App. 2d 581
8 Cal. 2d 663
245 Cal. App. 2d 196
224 Cal. App. 2d 271
187 Cal. App. 2d 506
130 Cal. App. 2d 151
96 Cal. App. 2d 778
67 Cal. App. 2d 812
71 Cal. 2d 659