CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMZ INSURANCE SERVICES, INC Part-II
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b<br /> >CHICAGO<br /> TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMZ INSURANCE SERVICES, INC</b><br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 9/9/10<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b<br /> >CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DIVISION THREE<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/>CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE<br /> COMPANY,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Plaintiff and Respondent,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>AMZ INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Defendant, Cross‑defendant and<br /> Respondent; <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>PACIFIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE<br /> COMPANY et al.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Defendants, Cross‑complainants<br /> and Appellants.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> G041188<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> (Super. Ct. No. 06CC08942)<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> O P I N I O N<br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >Story continued from part I…..</b><br /> <br/>b. Mutuality of Obligation<i ></i><br /> <br/>PSIC<br /> and McGraw argue the EOI was not enforceable as a binder because it did not<br /> contain mutual promises or obligations. <br /> â€