Legal Opinion

Ginder v. Harleysville Mut. Casualty Co.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided November 24, 1942No. 2459PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GANEY, District Judge.

This is a motion for summary judgment as provided for by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 56(a), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

The defendant herein executed and delivered an automobile liability policy to the plaintiff herein, who resided at 1603 Madison Avenue, Scranton, Pennsylvania, effective as of November 12, 1938. The policy, inter alia, contained an exclusions provisions feature, Paragraph (e) thereof reading as follows: “This policy does not apply to bodily injuries or death of any employee of the insured while engaged in the business of the assured,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. S. & E. Motor Hire Corp. v. New York Indemnity Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1930
  2. Mason-Henry Press v. . &198tna L. Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1914
  3. Bingell v. Royal InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
  4. Howes v. GinderAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. American Fidelity & Casualty Company, Inc. v. St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1957
  2. Cimarron Insurance v. Travelers InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Maryland Casualty Co. v. New Jersey Manufacturers (Casualty) InsuranceNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1958
  4. Michigan Mutual Liability Co. v. CarrollSupreme Court of Alabama · 1960
  5. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railroad v. St. Paul Mercury-Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1964

13 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