|
4947 REVIEW DENIED Because the insurer promised to preserve the defective tire for the insured’s third party suit, the insurer undertook an affirmative duty which it breached when it destroyed the tire. Had the tire not been destroyed, the insured likely would have been able to succeed in its underlying case, thus the proceedings supported the theories of promissory estoppel and/or a voluntary assumption of a duty.CitationCOOPER V STATE FARM (Destroying the Wrong Tire) 177 CA4 876 REV DENIED [See Stephen v Ford Motor Co 134 CA4 1363; Cedars-Sinai Med Ctr v Super Ct 184 C4 1; Temple Community Hosp v Super Ct 20 C4 464]
|
|
