Marsh v. Home Insurance Co.

Respectfully, I dissent from the majority view.

This case involves the interpretation of the provisions of an insurance policy. The trial judge reviewed those contract provisions and, as a matter of law, held that under the facts of this case there was no evidence of coverage under the felonious assault endorsement provision of the policy. A directed verdict was granted for the defendant/appellee.

The majority opinion recites the coverage provisions, the pertinent parts of which are:(1) Robbery or an attempted robbery of a fellow franchise store; or(2) Robbery ... or murder ... while traveling…