Hyer v. Inter-Insurance Exchange of the Automobile Club
California Court of Appeal
1Dissent
CRAIG, J., Dissenting.
I dissent, because to my mind the word “accident” in the indemnity policy in suit was intended by the parties to be given its ordinary meaning, and this the opinion of my associates holds it should not receive.
It must be conceded that it is a necessary presumption that the word in question was understood to denote its usual meaning unless some consideration of fact or law appears to the contrary. I find neither. The word “accident” as used in indemnity insurance appears to have a definite meaning. There can be no dispute upon the proposition that all authorities agree…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Western Indemnity Co. v. PillsburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Rock v. Travelers' Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1916
- Chapin v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1914
- Tuttle v. Pacific Mutual Life InsuranceMontana Supreme Court · 1920
- Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.