Legal Opinion · Dissent

Offutt v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided November 7, 1968No. [No. 365, September Term, 1967.]Published

1DissentBarnes, J.

I dissent in this case because, in my opinion, the insured established that there was both a “forcible entry” into the truck and “visible signs” of this forcible entry at the point of entry. The relevant portion of the policy first quoted in the majority opinion must be construed as an entirety. See Gottlieb v. American Automobile Ins. Co., 177 Md. 32, 38, 7 A. 2d 182, 185 (1939). Its purpose is to require that the insured securely locks the truck and completely closes all windows, when leaving the vehicle unattended. It is obvious that this requirement substantially reduces the risk of theft…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Lowitt & Harry Cohen Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Pearsall Chemical Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1966
  2. National Surety Co. v. Silberberg Bros.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1915
  3. Aviation Employees Insurance v. BarclayCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1965
  4. Indemnity Ins. v. SloanCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1934
  5. Bernard v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1924

1 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