Legal Opinion · Dissent

Unkelsbee v. Homestead Fire Insurance Co. of Baltimore

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided February 6, 1945No. 230Published

1DissentHood, Associate Judge

I am unable to agree with the majority. It is plain that the insured did not purchase collision insurance. On the front page of the policy were listed numerous coverages. Insured purchased coverage “D,” there described as: “Comprehensive — Loss'of or damage to the Automobile, except by Collision but including Fire, Theft and Windstorm.” He did not purchase coverage “E,” described as: “Collision or Upset.” In the body of the policy these coverages are described in more detail. Coverage “D” is set forth in the majority opinion. Coverage “E” reads as follows :

“Coverage E — 'Collision or Upset
“To…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania Indemnity Fire Corp. v. AldridgeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941
  2. Rea v. Motors Ins. CorporationNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1944
  3. De Agostina v. HolmdenNew York Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Moore v. Union Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1941
  5. Shahin v. Niagara Fire InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1943

1 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