Shade v. Canadian Indemnity Co.

[45]Opinion

ROTH, P. J. At the times pertinent herein, appellant Janice Shade was the owner of some eight parcels of real property, most of them located in Whittier, California. She carried insurance against loss incurred by reason of her ownership with respondent Canadian Indemnity Company (Canadian). Because of the multiple character of her holdings, the coverage afforded by Canadian was evidenced by a single policy of insurance which described the parcels in an attached schedule and Ms. Shade was billed for premiums through a combined statement encompassing all of the properties, one of which consisted of a vacant lot on Chadsey Drive in Whittier. This business mode was reflected in Canadian’s insurance policy issued to Ms. Shade for the period October 12, 1975, to October 11, 1976.

For whatever reason, the coverage on the Chadsey Drive property ceased on the latter date, while that related to her other parcels continued.

In September of 1979, Ms. Shade was named as defendant in a suit brought on behalf of Charles Van Fossan II a minor under 14 years of age, wherein it was alleged Ms. Shade was liable for personal injury suffered by the youth on the Chadsey Drive property. She, in turn, notified Canadian of the action, in the expectation it would defend and indemnify. Upon being advised by Canadian the particular parcel was not insured, she filed a cross-complaint against that company, the fifth amended version of which is the subject of this appeal.

In the cross-complaint so amended, additionally to the foregoing facts, it was alleged Ms. Shade had entered into an oral agreement with William Murray (dba the Albright-Murray Agency) (Murray) as the agent of Canadian, whereby it was agreed Canadian’s coverage of all her parcels would be renewed annually unless either party instructed the other to the contrary.

The substance of the pleading was expressed in the following fashion.1

“5. Cross-Complainant (Ms. Shade) . . . alleges that . . . (Murray) is, ... an insurance agency authorized to do business in the State of California. Cross-Complainant . . . alleges that . . . (Canadian) is ... an insurer authorized to conduct business in the State of California, . . .

“6. (Murray), . . . was the agent of . . . (Canadian) ... for the purpose of securing and placing insurance policies through Canadian. . . .