Hover

Hover v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

Good Law
138 Cal. Rptr. 646·1977 Cal. App. LEXIS 1507·70 Cal. App. 3d 245
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 31, 1977Civ. No. 38522California1,428 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Taylor, J.

Wade Hover (hereafter Hover), an assignee of the insured Smith, appeals from an adverse judgment in an action to recover *247 a fire loss pursuant to an automatic open policy issued by the insurer. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (hereafter St. Paul). Hover’s major contentions are that: 1) St. Paul’s policy No. 188JB6506 (hereafter No. 6506) afforded coverage for the loss in question; 2) the trial court erroneously admitted extrinsic evidence as to the meaning of the open cover agreement. We have concluded that there is no merit to either of these contentions and that the judgment must be affirmed.

The record indicates the following pertinent facts: Beginning July 1968, for a term of one year, and annually thereafter, the insured, a contractor, purchased for $25 coverage pursuant to an automatic open policy issued by St. Paul.

The insured renewed the policy in 1969, 1970 and 1971 through an independent insurance broker, Miller & Ames; in 1972, the insured renewed the policy through a new independent insurance broker, Johnson & Higgins. The terms and conditions of coverage under the automatic open policy were provided to St. Paul by Miller & Ames, the…

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.