Jensen v. Eureka Casualty Co.

California Court of Appeal Dec 18, 1935 No. Civ. 9489Published

Before: Doran

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence supported the trial court's finding that the insured did not breach the cooperation clause of the insurance policy, as the insurer failed to prove the insured willfully failed to cooperate.

Issues

Whether the insured breached the cooperation clause of the insurance policy by failing to remain available for trial.
Whether the trial court's finding that the insured performed all required conditions was supported by the evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“That the violation of the cooperation clause of such an insurance policy by the assured, where the insurer is substantially prejudiced thereby, is a valid defense, is well settled.”

“Certainly, in the instant case, the evidence does not warrant the conclusion that Mr. Abroms wilfully failed to lend further cooperation.”

“the finding of the trial court, that it was not true that said G. I. Abroms failed, neglected or refused to perform the said conditions or any of them upon his part to be performed, is amply sustained by the evidence”

DORAN, J.

One O. I. Abroms was a policyholder of appellant, the Eureka Casualty Company. In an action for damages, resulting from a collision in which Mr. Abroms was involved, a judgment was obtained against him. The plaintiff in that action then made demand of the Eureka Casualty Company for payment of the judgment, which demand was refused,- the present action followed, in which plaintiff prevailed and defendant company appeals from the judgment.

The policy issued by appellant contained the following clause: “(16) Report of Accident, Claim and Suits, and Cooperation of Assured: Upon the occurrence of any loss or accident covered under Section 11 hereof, and irrespective of whether any injury or damage is apparent at the time, the Assured shall give immediate written notice to the company at its office in Los Angeles, California, or to the Authorized Representative who issued this policy, with the fullest information obtainable at the time. If a claim is made on account of any such accident the Assured shall give like notice thereof immediately after such claim is made, with full particulars. If thereafter any suit is brought against the Assured to enforce such claim, the Assured shall immediately forward to the Company every summons or other process as soon as the same shall have been served: Whenever requested by the Company, the Assured shall aid in effecting settlement, securing information and evidence, the attendance of witnesses and in prosecuting appeals, and at all times render all possible co-operation and assistance (not pecuniary); ...”

The opening statement of appellants’ brief presents the question raised by this appeal as follows: “Practically none of the facts were disputed and the whole question presented is one of law upon the circumstances herein; that is, the court is here called upon to determine whether the policyholder herein complied with the conditions of the policy so as to permit the plaintiff to recover against the company and its successor on that policy or whether the failure of the assured constituted a breach of the conditions and prejudiced the rights of the company to such extent that there is no responsibility upon the part of the carrier.”

Under the heading “argument”, the same brief contains the following declaration: “The whole question that follows,

[708]

Jensen v. Eureka Casualty Co.

AI Brief

DORAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief