Reserve Insurance v. Universal Underwriters Insurance

Good Law
123 Cal. Rptr. 763·1975 Cal. App. LEXIS 1353·51 Cal. App. 3d 57
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 28, 1975Civ. 45647California1,985 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kaus, J.

The trial court dismissed this action on motion of defendant Universal Underwriters Insurance Company (“Universal”) because it had not been brought to trial within five years. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583, subd. (b).) Plaintiff Reserve Insurance Company (“Reserve”) contends that the trial court was compelled to conclude, as a matter of law, that it would have been “impracticable and futile” for plaintiff to proceed to trial, because a significant legal issue in this case was involved in an appeal by Universal from a judgment in favor of a party aligned with plaintiff.

Facts

In June 1966, Richard Metz was seriously injured by a driver driving a leased automobile. He sued the driver and the agency-owner.

An insurance policy written by Reserve covered the driver and the agency, with limits of $90,000. However, it was Reserve’s position that this insurance policy was excess over any other applicable insurance. Universal had issued a policy with limits of $250,000 to the agency. It claimed, however, that the policy did not cover the driver of the leased car and was excess over Reserve’s policy if it did.

In May 1968, Reserve filed an action against Universal and Metz seeking a…

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.