Legal Opinion · Dissent

Seaboard Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Daniel Gibbs

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided February 28, 1968No. 11433_1Published

1Dissent

MARVIN JONES, Senior Judge,*

(dissenting in part):

I agree with the majority opinion that the policy should be construed to include the type of vehicle involved in the instant case. The policy was written specifically to cover a pickup truck. It would be a rather strained construction to hold that the placing of double, rather than single, wheels on the rear of two axles would take the coverage altogether away from the vehicle. Courts throughout the country, in interpreting automobile insurance policies, have construed the term “automobile” as broadly inclusive. In Continental Cas. Co. v.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Christmas v. CooleySupreme Court of Colorado · 1965
  2. Continental Casualty Co. v. Buckeye Union Casualty Co., Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division1957
  3. Washington Nat. Ins. Co. v. BurkeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1953
  4. Grantham v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1964
  5. Lilley-Ames Company, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1961

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