Paul Masson Co. v. Colonial Insurance

Good Law
14 Cal. App. 3d 265·1971 Cal. App. LEXIS 990·92 Cal. Rptr. 463·36 Cal. Comp. Cases 836
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 12, 1971Civ. 35902California2,423 words

Opinion

Opinion

Irwin, J.

This appeal arises from an action in declaratory relief to determine the respective rights and obligations of insurance carriers in respect to an “unloading” case in which Lane Grinstead, the plaintiff therein, claimed personal injury.

The insurers involved are appellant Colonial Insurance Company (Colonial); respondents, The Travelers Indemnity Company (Travelers); Imperial Casualty and Indemnity Company (Imperial); and The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (Aetna).

The trial court entered judgment declaring that the appellant Colonial is the primary insurer and that all respondent insurers are excess carriers. Colonial appeals from this judgment and contends (1) its policy expressly excludes any coverage pertaining to Grinstead’s injury and, therefore, it has no liability as a matter of law; or (2) that appellant is an excess insurer; or (3) a co-primary insurer with Imperial.

The case was submitted for decision pursuant to a written “stipulation of facts.” The respective insurance policies were received without any evidence in aid of their construction. Under such circumstances an appellate court is not bound by the trial court’s interpretation of the insurance…

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.