Legal Opinion

Wallin v. Knudtson

Washington Supreme Court

Decided January 7, 1955No. 32858PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHill, J.

We are here concerned with the interpretation of the so-called “omnibus clause” in a policy of liability insurance issued to LeRoy Knudtson, which clause reads as follows:

“With respect to the insurance for bodily injury liability and for property damage liability the unqualified word ‘Insured’ includes . . . (1) any person while using an automobile owned by the Named Insured . . . provided the actual use is with the permission of the Named Insured. ...” (Italics ours.)

The ultimate facts which raised the question of the liability of the insurance company under this provision of the policy were…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Peterson v. MaloneySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
  2. Vezolles v. Home Indemnity Co., New YorkDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1941
  3. Gulla v. ReynoldsOhio Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Haeuser v. &198tna Casualty Surety Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1939
  5. Cypert v. RobertsWashington Supreme Court · 1932

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Thompson v. EzzellWashington Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Western Pac. Ins. Co. v. Farmers Ins. ExchangeWashington Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Johnson v. DoughtyOregon Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Foote v. GrantWashington Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Foote v. GrantWashington Supreme Court · 1960

8 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