Legal Opinion

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Continental Insurance

Court of Appeals of Kansas

Decided December 16, 1977No. 48,983PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Spencer, J.:

This action was brought to determine whether appellee’s insured, Stanley Pfannenstiel, as a second permittee, was a permissive user under the omnibus clause of an automobile liability insurance policy issued to Clarence J. Rohr by appellant.

No substantial dispute exists as to the facts of this case, which were found by the trial court to be as follows:

“ . . . On July 14, 1972, Gary L. Rohr, a fifteen-year-old boy with a restricted driver’s license, and his father, Clarence J. Rohr, purchased a 1965 Mustang. The car was to be Gary’s car for use in going to and from school and most…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. American States Insurance v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1976
  2. Larry Gillen v. Globe Indemnity CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1967
  3. Gangel v. BensonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1974
  4. Jones v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1977
  5. Alliance Mutual Casualty Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1972

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. DeWitt v. YoungSupreme Court of Kansas · 1981
  2. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. HokansonCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1978
  3. Farmers Insurance v. SchillerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1979
  4. Salt City Business College, Inc. v. Ohio Casualty InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1979
  5. Cimarron Insurance v. LoftusCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1980

5 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