Legal Opinion · Dissent

Alliance Mutual Casualty Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided December 9, 1972No. 46,783Published

1DissentFromme, J.

I cannot agree with the majority opinion which invests this court with authority not only to delete provisions in a contract of insurance but also to determine the ultimate facts in the lawsuit.

The “named insured” in the present policy was Jack W. Seamens. With respect to liability coverage he alone was invested with authority under the omnibus provisions of the policy to grant or withhold permission to operate the automobile. Other persons insured, such as residents of the household of the named insured, are not invested with such authority to extend coverage to strangers. The named insured,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Burks v. WhalenSupreme Court of Kansas · 1971

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API