Hertz Corp. v. Home Insurance

Good Law
14 Cal. App. 4th 1071·18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 267·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 353·93 Daily Journal DAR 4196·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2492
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 31, 1993D013976California3,536 words

Opinion

Opinion

Froehlich, J.

The Home Insurance Company and H. L. Yoh Company (appellants) appeal from a judgment entered in favor of the Hertz Corporation and Fireman’s Fund Insurance Companies (respondents) in a declaratory relief action. The parties had disputed the question of who was obligated to fund the settlement entered into with two third party victims injured in an accident involving a person covered by various policies of insurance. The trial court ruled in favor of respondents, because the insuring agreements issued by respondents contained an exclusion purporting to bar coverage for the accident. This appeal followed.

I

Genesis of the Dispute

A. Facts

In early 1988 appellant H. L. Yoh Company (H. L. Yoh) sent an employee, Lawrence McIntyre (McIntyre), to work in various locations in San Diego. McIntyre worked in the San Diego area from January through May, during which time he rented several vehicles from appellant Hertz Corporation (Hertz), including the one involved in the subject accident. When he rented Hertz cars, McIntyre signed the Hertz rental agreement and elected to purchase the “liability insurance supplement” coverage (the LIS/excess policy). The dispute here revolves…

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.