Legal Opinion
Lopez v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
District Court, D. Alaska
Decided July 15, 1955No. 7659PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HODGE, District Judge.
The plaintiff seeks to recover for loss of an automobile owned by him, due to upset, under the terms and conditions of “Automobile Liability and Physical Damage Policy” issued by the defendant insurer. The particular coverage of the policy applicable to this controversy provides as follows:
“Coverage E — Collision or Upset —To pay for direct and accidental loss of or damage to the automobile, hereinafter called loss, caused by collision of the automobile with another object or by upset of the automobile, but only for the amount of each such loss in excess of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Fogarty v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
- Lounsbury v. Protection Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1831
- Lunn v. Ind. Lumbermen's Mut Ins. Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1947
- Terrien v. Pawtucket Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1950
- Bernard v. U. S. AircoachDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1953
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Camalier & Buckley-Madison, Inc. v. The Madison Hotel, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1975
- M.C. Ex Rel. M.N. v. Antelope Valley Union High School DistrictCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- Rollins v. LeiboldAlaska Supreme Court · 1973
- Gamble v. Northstore PartnershipAlaska Supreme Court · 1995
- Mitchell v. MitchellAlaska Supreme Court · 2016
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.