Meyer

Meyer v. Pacific Employers Insurance

Good Law
1965 Cal. App. LEXIS 1365·233 Cal. App. 2d 321·43 Cal. Rptr. 542
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 30, 1965Civ. 27641California2,890 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nourse, J.

The plaintiffs by their complaint in this action sought a judgment declaring their rights and the liabilities of the respondent under a policy of liability insurance issued by respondent to M. R. Peck and Earl P. Kent, Jr., doing business as M. R. Peck & Son, a copartnership, and each plaintiff sought judgment against respondent for the amount of the judgment obtained by him or her against M. R. Peck and Earl P. Kent, Jr., in an action in the municipal court. The facts are not in dispute.

The partnership drilled a water well on property adjacent to that of plaintiffs. In so doing they caused the ground to vibrate and these vibrations resulted in damage to the respective buildings of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs brought suit in the municipal court against the partnership and the individual partners (the action was dismissed as against all defendants except M. R. Peck and Earl P. Kent, Jr.). In the complaint filed in the municipal court each plaintiff alleged two causes of action, namely, “That the defendants so negligently, wantonly, recklessly, and unlawfully performed some or all of the drilling operations at said site that, to the defendants’ knowledge, dangerous vibrations were…

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.