How have courts dealt with the issue of cancellation of insurance policies when the policy has been deemed to be "substantial and continuing" for a period of time?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from California Union Ins. Co. v. Landmark Ins. Co., 145 Cal.App.3d 462, 193 Cal.Rptr. 461 (Cal. App. 1983):
In Harman v. American Casualty Company, 155 F.Supp. 612 (C.D.Cal.1957), another land slippage case, the carrier issued notices of cancellation of its fire insurance policy (including an endorsement insuring the premises against "All Physical Loss,") during a period of time when the damage had been found to be "substantial and continuing." (at p. 613.) It argued that by so doing its policy did not cover any damages occurring after the cancellation. The court made short work of the contention:
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
