Legal Opinion

Fowler v. Canal Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided February 5, 1990No. 1455PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Sanders, Chief Judge:

Appellant Edwin A. Fowler appeals from an order of the -Circuit Court concluding that he was not entitled to recover under the terms of an insurance policy issued by respondent Canal Insurance Company. We reverse and remand.

The material facts are stipulated.

Mr. Fowler had collision coverage under the policy issued by Canal. The pertinent part of the policy defines a “collision” as “(1) a collision of a covered automobile with another object ... or (2) upset of the covered automobile.” The policy insured a tandem dump truck, consisting of a tractor and dump trailer. It is…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Federal Insurance Company v. PAT Homes, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Jack v. Standard Marine InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1949
  3. McCracken v. Government Employees InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1985
  4. Moore v. Western Assur. Co. of TorontoSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1938
  5. Edens v. South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1983

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Brooklyn Bridge, Inc. v. South Carolina InsuranceCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1992
  2. Carroll v. Jackson National Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1991
  3. Carroll v. Jackson National Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API