O'Connor v. Proprietors Insurance Co.
Colorado Court of Appeals
1DissentCoyte, Judge
I dissent.
The majority opinion uncritically applies the rule of Schantini v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity, 43 Colo.App. 79, 605 P.2d 920 (1971), that a violation of the express terms of the exclusionary provisions of a contract for insurance bars recovery by the insured even though there is no causal relationship between the violation and the accident. I am still of the opinion that Schanti-ni was wrongly decided and that the application of the rule announced therein leads to improper and unjust results.
The stipulated facts of this case graphically illustrate the harsh results of the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- South Carolina Insurance v. Collins Ex Rel. Estate of CollinsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1977
- Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company v. GibsonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1966
- Security Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. HollingsworthSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1969
- Schantini v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1979