Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Burton
Gruenberg v. Aetna Insurance Co.
Citation:9 Cal. 3d 566, 108 Cal. Rptr. 480, 510 P.2d 1032
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Gruenberg (plaintiff) owned a cocktail lounge and restaurant business in Los Angeles known as the Brass Rail. The Brass Rail premises was insured against fire loss in the sum of $35,000 by three insurers: Aetna Insurance Company, Yosemite Insurance Company, and American Home Insurance Company (hereinafter “Aetna et al.”) (defendants). A fire later broke out at the Brass Rail. The next day, a claims adjustor went to the Brass Rail to investigate and inspect the premises. The claims adjustor believed that Gruenberg had excessive insurance for the premises and foul play was expected on his (Gruenberg’s) part. Gruenberg was charged with the crimes of arson and defrauding an insurer. Aetna et al.’s attorney demanded Gruenberg appear at an examination to be taken under oath about Gruenberg’s claim of fire loss. The attorney warned Gruenberg that a failure to appear would void his insurance coverage. Gruenberg did not appear, having requested that the examination be waived until the criminal charges were concluded. Gruenberg’s criminal charges were dismissed for lack of probable cause, but his insurance coverage voided. Gruenberg sued Aetna et al.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.