Silberg v. California Life Insurance Company
California Supreme Court
11 Cal.3d 452 (1974)
Enrique Silberg (plaintiff) owned and operated a dry-cleaning business. His landlord owned a laundromat that Silberg sporadically worked at in exchange for reduced rent. On July 17, 1966, Silberg was injured in an accident at the laundromat and admitted to a hospital. Silberg told the hospital that he was insured by California Life Insurance Company (CLIC) (defendant). Silberg’s policy with CLIC contained an exclusion for losses that would be payable under workmen’s compensation. Silberg later notified and filed claims with CLIC for his injury. In his claim forms, Silberg declared that he was self-employed and would be seeking workmen’s compensation. Silberg was hospitalized two more times for injuries stemming from the same accident. Because CLIC failed to pay any of Silberg’s medical bills, he had to go to different hospitals each time. Silberg notified each hospital that he was insured by CLIC. However, when Silberg sought to collect workmen’s compensation, his claim was denied. According to the Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board (Board), Silberg was not an employee. Silberg’s workmen’s-compensation claim was later settled without a determination as to Silberg’s employment status. Silberg filed suit against CLIC, seeking a declaration that CLIC was liable under the policy because the Board had not formally found that Silberg’s injury was covered by workmen’s compensation. At trial, the manager of CLIC’s claims department testified that CLIC had failed to pay Silberg’s claims because CLIC was awaiting the findings of the Board before determining whether the exclusion applied. The trial court found that Silberg’s policy with CLIC was ambiguous, and issued an order requiring CLIC to pay Silberg’s medical costs. CLIC appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Mosk, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 724,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 724,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.