Legal Opinion
Austin v. American Casualty Company
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided September 17, 1963No. 3278PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HOOD, Chief Judge.
Under a “Homeowners Policy” of insurance issued by appellee, appellant was insured against loss by “Theft, meaning any act of stealing or attempt thereat.” Thereafter, for an additional premium, appellant was given “Extended Theft Coverage” which, in addition to deleting an exclusion in the policy, amended the meaning of theft so as to read: “Theft, meaning any act of stealing or attempt thereat, or mysterious disappearance (except mysterious disappearance of a precious or semiprecious stone from its setting in any watch or piece of jewelry).”
The issue here is whether the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Davis v. St. Paul Mercury & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
- Caldwell v. St. Paul Mercury-Indemnity Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1950
- Loop v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Ins. Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1953
- Levine v. Accident & Casualty InsuranceCity of New York Municipal Court · 1952
- Deckler v. Travelers Indemnity CompanyLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1957
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Corcoran v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1975
- Hammontree v. Central Mutual Insurance CompanyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1965
- State v. Glens Falls Insurance Company, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1974
- Aetna Insurance Company v. ZoblotskySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1971
- Brier v. Mutual Insurance Co. of HartfordConnecticut Appellate Court · 1965
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.