Johnson v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
Alaska Supreme Court
1ConcurrenceMatthews, Justice
In my view there is a question of fact as to the scope of the permission which Duvall gave Stacy. Stacy’s testimony reflects his belief that he was operating the vehicle beyond the permission given him:
Q. Tom, how did you feel about using the Kallerson vehicle the night of the accident. Did you feel you had a right to use it for whatever you wanted on that evening?
A. Well, no not really. .
Q. Do you feel that Russ Duvall would have minded you using it on that evening if he had known you were going to?
A. He might have, yeah.
Q. And what makes you say that?
A. Well he is — I don’t know — he is…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Odolecki v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1970
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Iowa National Mutual InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1973
- Costanzo v. Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers' Mutual Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1959
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. McManusIllinois Supreme Court · 1976
- Arndt v. DavisNebraska Supreme Court · 1969
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.