Discovery
Civ-Pro
Case Summary |
|
p1568 The fact that an insurance company continues coverage of an insured after the insured moves to California does not subject the company to personal jurisdiction in California, because the company has not taken steps to do business in the state but is merely responding to unilateral steps taken by the insured.CitationELKMAN v NAT’L STATES INS CO. (Long Arm) 173 CA4 1305 [See Int’l Shoe v Wash 326 US 310; McGee v Int’l Life Ins Co 355 US 220] |
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
Finz Case Law Summaries (Finz Advance Tapes)
|
|||||
Copyright by Pincus Legal Education, Inc. ©1992 - 2022
|
|||||