TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMZ INSURANCE SERVICES, INC
Filed 9/9/10
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
AMZ INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Cross‑defendant and
Respondent;
PACIFIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY et al.,
Defendants, Cross‑complainants
and Appellants.
G041188
(Super. Ct. No. 06CC08942)
O P I N I O N
Story continued from part I…..
b. Mutuality of Obligation
PSIC
and McGraw argue the EOI was not enforceable as a binder because it did not
contain mutual promises or obligations.
â€
| Description | A binder is a contract of insurance that provides coverage pending the issuance of the insurance policy. (Adams v. Explorer Ins. Co. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 438, 451 (Adams).) The central issue in this case is whether a document entitled †|
| Rating |
