Hausmann

Hausmann v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

Good Law
1963 Cal. App. LEXIS 2778·213 Cal. App. 2d 611·29 Cal. Rptr. 75
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 6, 1963Civ. 26860California2,156 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lillie, J.

Leave of court having been granted ex parte, Farmers Insurance Exchange filed its complaint in intervention some three months after its insured, Mr. Hausmann, had instituted an action against the defendants Gattenio for personal injuries to himself and his family as well as property damage to his automobile. An answer to Farmers’ pleading was filed by the Gattenios. The Hausmanns, however, demurred to the complaint in intervention upon the ground that no cause of action was therein stated; they also moved to strike the proposed pleading. The demurrer was sustained without leave to amend and the motion went off calendar. Farmers has appealed from the ensuing judgement of dismissal.

This appeal follows a summary denial by this court of Farmers’ petition for a writ directing the trial court to vacate its order of dismissal (No. 26468), and the denial of a hearing by the Supreme Court. Contrary to the Hausmanns’ contentions, such denial of the writ does not operate as res judicata in future proceedings. (Pease v. City of San Diego, 93 Cal.App.2d 706, 712 [ 209 P.2d 843 ].) Accordingly, we shall not allude further to his point since the governing rule is now well settled.

The facts…

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.