Legal Opinion
Hunter v. Pearl Assur. Co., Ltd.
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided March 15, 1940No. Docket No. 135, Calendar No. 40,967PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBushnell, C. J.
On May 1, 1936, plaintiff’s assignor was insured by defendant against loss of cargoes transported in the assignor’s motor trucks. The theft clause of the policy read in part:
“In consideration of the rate at which this policy is written and subject to all conditions of this policy, the perils insured against hereunder are extended to include: theft but not pilferage, it being understood that, as to goods and merchandise in shipping packages, coverage under this indorsement shall extend to entire shipping packages only. It is further understood and agreed that this policy shall not cover
“ (a)…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Mondou v. Lincoln Mutual Casualty Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1938
- People v. MattesonMichigan Supreme Court · 1937
3Cited by14 opinions
- Certified Restoration Dry Cleaning Network, L.L.C. v. Tenke Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
- Klapp v. United Insurance Group Agency, IncMichigan Supreme Court · 2003
- C & H Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1972
- Georgia Carpet Express, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1979
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. AragonaCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1976
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.