Littlefield v. Phoenix Indemnity Insurance
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the Court
Branch. J.
The contention that the car in question “was not to be used for towing purposes” cannot be sustained. The tenth declaration in the policy does not state generally that the insured automobile will not be used for towing, but that it will not be used “for towing or propelling any trailer or other vehicle used as a trailer.” If there were a comma or other punctuation mark after “towing,” the defendant’s position would be more plausible, but as it stands, the language of the policy merely forbids the use of the car as motive power for a “trailer.” Every consideration of verbal fitness…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Hardee v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1961
- Sunshine Mut. Ins. Co. v. AddySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1951
- Safeguard Insurance Company v. JusticeSupreme Court of Virginia · 1962
- Henderson v. NewlandIllinois Supreme Court · 1964
- Cross v. Maryland Casualty Co.District Court, N.D. Texas · 1940
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.