Great American Insurance Co. v. Lane
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Dissent
BATEMAN, Justice.
I respectfully dissent.
The opinion of the majority is based primarily upon that portion of the opinion in Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. Proffitt, 150 Tex. 207, 239 S.W.2d 379, wherein it was held that the provision in the Comprehensive Clause, that loss caused by falling objects, etc. shall not be deemed loss caused by collision or upset, cannot be used to defeat a recovery under the Collision Clause.
However, in the preceding paragraph of the Proffitt opinion the court held that it was proper to examine the language of the Comprehensive Clause for the purpose of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Providence Washington Insurance v. ProffittTexas Supreme Court · 1951
- United States Ins. Co. of Waco v. BoyerTexas Supreme Court · 1954
- Glens Falls Insurance v. McCownTexas Supreme Court · 1951
- American Automobile Ins. Co. v. BakerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1928
- Iowa Mutual Insurance Company v. FaulknerTexas Supreme Court · 1957
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.