Legal Opinion
Peninsula Insurance v. Knight
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided July 1, 1969No. [No. 355, September Term, 1968.]PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMcWilliams, J.
Our task here is to construe, in the context of facts to be related, an exclusionary clause in a policy of insurance issued by the appellant (Peninsula) to the appellee, Ronald Lester Knight (Ronald). Peninsula denied coverage to Ronald because the claims against him arose out of bodily injury to persons “related [to him] by blood or marriage and * * * [who are] resident [s] of the same household as [Ronald],” namely, his father Robert L. Knight and his mother Frances A. Knight. The words “resident” and “household” are the sand in the gears. In 77 C.J.S. Resident at 305 (1952) it is said:
“The…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- PULLER (Et Al.) v. PullerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
- Tomlyanovich v. TomlyanovichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1953
- Giokaris v. KincaidSupreme Court of Missouri · 1960
- Cal-Farm Insurance v. BoisserancCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. SmithSupreme Court of Virginia · 1965
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Richard Blanchard v. Peerless Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1992
- Forbes v. Harleysville Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1991
- United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. HanleyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1977
- Bustamante v. BustamanteUtah Supreme Court · 1982
- STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY v. KayUtah Supreme Court · 1971
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.