California Court of Appeal

Reset A A Font size: Print

City of Hollister v. Monterey Ins. Co., H029296

In an action to recover destroyed building's "functional replacement value" under an insurance policy, judgment for plaintiff-city is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) the appeal was moot and the case must be dismissed; 2) the trial court erred in ruling that as a result of defendant-insurer's conduct it was estopped to raise a 180-day contracting clause as a defense to a claim for functional replacement value coverage; and 3) city failed to demonstrate that it could and would have satisfied the contracting condition had defendant behaved differently. Judgment is modified to provide that the 180-day period provided therein will begin to run when this court's opinion is final as to this court and the time to seek review from the California Supreme Court has expired.

Appellate Information

  • Decided 07/29/2008
  • Published 07/29/2008

Judges

  • RUSHING, P.J.

Court

  • California Court of Appeal

Counsel

  • For Appellees:
  • Long & Levit, John B. Hook, Irene K. Yesowitch, San Francisco, for Defendants and Appellants Monterey Insurance Company, et al., Law Offices of Joel Franklin, Joel Franklin, Monterey, Offices of Vincent P. Hurley, Vincent P. Hurley, City Attorney, City of Hollister, Stephanie A. Atigh, Salinas, for Plaintiff and Respondent City of Hollister.
Copied to clipboard