Legal Opinion

Phoenix Indemnity Co. v. Conwell

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided June 27, 1946No. 3596PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJohnston, J.

The defendants claim coverage by reason of the wording of R. L., c. 122, s. 1, par. VII, cl. (b) defining the term, motor vehicle liability policy, so that it provides further for protection to the named insured for liability “due to the operation of any motor vehicle . . . not owned in whole or in part by such insured, ...” Similar language is found in the wording of the New Hampshire statutory motor vehicle liability policy endorsement attached to the policy of the defendant Conwell, although this and other language of the policy (article VIII) attempt to limit the coverage to the period…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Merchants Mutual Casualty Co. v. EganSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1941
  2. Continental Insurance v. CharestSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1941

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Campbell v. Aetna Casualty and Surety CoCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1954
  2. Kennedy v. Audubon Insurance CompanyLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1955
  3. Ohm v. Fireman's Fund Indemnity Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1957
  4. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. SweattSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1948
  5. Hamon v. RichardsSuperior Court of Delaware · 1963

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API