Legal Opinion

Rykill v. Franklin Fire Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 2, 1923No. Appeal, No. 263PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Gawthrop, J.,

This is an action upon a policy of insurance on an automobile to recover loss resulting from three separate collisions. From a judgment entered on a verdict for the plaintiff comes this appeal. The errors assigned are the refusal of defendant’s point for binding instructions and judgment for defendant n. o. v. The insufficiency of the plaintiff’s case is urged on several grounds. But two of these need to be considered. The policy sued on contains these express stipulations:

“This policy shall cease and terminate......(3) if the automobile described be used for carrying…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hardiman v. Fire Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
  2. McClure v. Mutual Fire Ins.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Canal Insurance Company v. Underwriters at Lloyd's LondonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2006
  2. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. SartnoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  3. Murphy & Co. v. Manufacturers' Casualty Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  4. Orcutt v. Erie Indemnity Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  5. Harbridge Et Ux. v. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942

10 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