Legal Opinion

Rhode Island Ins. Co. v. Walden

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 30, 1927No. 3 Div. 788PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.

As we interpret the provision of the insurance policy set up in plea 3, it means that any insurance of property thereby is void if that property is not unconditionally owned by the insured alone; and that any insurance of a building is void if it be located on ground not owned by the insured in fee simple — there being an apportionment of the insurance to the building, and to the other property, severally, so that each indemnity is in effect a separate insurance.

From this view of the policy, it results that plea 3 was a good answer to the first count of the complaint, but not to the second…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Abney v. MooreSupreme Court of Alabama · 1894
  2. Arrrington v. ArringtonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1898
  3. Jenkins v. Woodward Iron Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1915
  4. Phillips v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
  5. Strickland v. GriswoldSupreme Court of Alabama · 1906

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Southern Land Development Co. v. MeyerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1935
  2. Sussex Fire Ins. Co. v. BartonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
  3. Manufacturers' Finance Acceptance Corp. v. AutreySupreme Court of Alabama · 1934
  4. Powell v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1962
  5. Hawie v. KellySupreme Court of Alabama · 1951

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API