|
4367 Although the California Supreme Court was unwilling to hold that a rental car company issuing excess insurance to a driver has any obligation reasonably to investigate the insurability of the driver, it held that a rental car agent's inspection of the driver's facially valid, but suspended license, would not be a breach of such a duty.CitationPHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY v MONTES-HARRIS (Insured's Misrepresentation) 40 C4 151 [See: VehC 14608, 14604; InsC 359; CA RofC 8.548 (fmrly 29.8); Barrera v State Farm 71 C2 659; USAA v Pegos 107 CA4 392, T/AT 5/03; Hartford v Mid-Century 26 CA4 1783, T/AT 8/94; Haynes v Farmers 32 C4 1198, T/AT 6/04]
|
|
