Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
United States v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 9, 1974No. 73-1001Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDuniway, Circuit Judge
For the purpose of this opinion, I assume that Judge Wright is correct in holding that the governing law is that of the State of Washington.
No Washington case cited to us is even remotely in point. I therefore look to the general rules applied by courts to the construction of insurance policies, which are followed in Washington. The major rule is well stated in Aschenbrenner v. United States, 1934, 292 U.S. 80, 54 S.Ct. 590, 78 L.Ed. 1137, in which Mr. Justice Stone (as he then was), writing for the Court said:
The phraseology of contracts of insurance is that chosen by the insurer and the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Aschenbrenner v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1934
- United States of America, Robert H. Busch and Mrs. Marguerite Busch v. United Services Automobile AssociationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970
- United States v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1972
- United States v. Government Employees Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1972
- United States v. Commercial Union Insurance GroupDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1969
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.