Legal Opinion
Rainville v. Farm Bureau Mutual Automobile Ins.
Supreme Court of Vermont
Decided October 2, 1951No. 522PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBlacicmer, J.
This is an action of contract on an automobile-insurance policy. Trial was by jury. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, on motion that the plaintiff had not proved a theft, the court directed a defendant’s verdict and entered judgment thereon.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, his evidence tends to establish the following facts. The plaintiff insured his automobile with the defendant against “Loss of or damage to the Automobile except by Collision or Upset but including Fire, Windstorm and Theft.” The plaintiff’s son, Andrew, a licensed operator, took this vehicle with the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Pennsylvania Indemnity Fire Corp. v. AldridgeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941
- Allen v. Berkshire Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1933
- Unkelsbee v. Homestead Fire Insurance Co. of BaltimoreDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1945
- State v. LevySupreme Court of Vermont · 1944
- Baker v. Continental InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1942
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- American Fidelity Co. v. North British & Mercantile InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1964
- State v. HansonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1982
- AMERICAN FIDELITY COMPANY v. ElkinsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1965
- Maurice L. Shulins, Administrator of the Estate of Martin O. Lindholm v. New England Insurance Company and Francis DelormeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1966
- Hayes v. Financial Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 1953
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.