Legal Opinion
Marshall's U. S. Auto Supply, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Decided June 4, 1945No. 39170PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHyde, P. J.
This is an action to recover $7561.78 as costs of defending an action (brought against plaintiff by an employee) which plaintiff claims defendant was obligated to defend tinder an insurance policy issued by defendant to plaintiff. (Plaintiff successfully defended the case, which was Tindall v. Marshall’s U. S. Auto Supply, Inc., 348 Mo. 1189, 159 S. W. (2d) 302.) Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals.
The policy of insurance was a “Standard Workmen’s Compensation and Employers’ Liability Policy.” It was substantially the same as the policy described in Soukop v. Employers’ Liability…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Soukup v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1937
- Cowell v. Employers Indemnity Corp.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1930
- Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. v. Washington Brick & Terra Cotta Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1927
- Bloom-Rosenblum-Kline Co. v. Union Indemnity Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1929
- Fessenden School, Inc. v. American Mutual Liability InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Fitzpatrick v. American Honda Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Zipkin v. FreemanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1968
- Associated Indemnity Co. v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaAppellate Court of Illinois · 1979
- Loftin v. United States Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
- Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Travelers Ins. Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1954
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.