Legal Opinion
E. Clemens Horst Co. v. Hartford Accident & Idemnity Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided June 18, 1928No. 5373PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). • Bearing in mind the controlling principle that, where a policy of insurance is so framed as to leave room to two constructions, the words used should be interpreted most strongly against the insurer (Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Kearney, 180 U. S. 132, 21 S. Ct. 326, 45 L. Ed. 460), we turn to the contract in question here, in order to determine from all of its provisions, as related to the circumstances and the purposes of the insurance to ascertain what was the intention of the parties thereto. It is apparent, from the terms of the policy and the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Cudahy Packing Co. Of Nebraska v. ParramoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance v. KearneySupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Claim of Littler v. George A. Fuller Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Swanson v. LathamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1917
- Sala v. American Sumatra Tobacco Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1918
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Lesser v. Great Lakes Casualty Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1943