Lowry v. Kneeland
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1DissentOtis, Justice
I agree with the Chief Justice that the words of an insurance policy must be given the plain meaning they ordinarily convey to the popular mind, but I have difficulty in finding that his interpretation of the word “employee” gives effect to the intention of the parties to the contract.1 I think it is significant that the word “employee” is here included among four classes of persons who may be connected with the insured corporation, namely, “any partner, employee, director or stockholder.” Partners, directors, and stockholders have definite and *545specific legal relationships with the company,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Bobich v. OjaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Frankle v. TwedtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
- State Ex Rel. Gorczyca v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
- Tschida v. DorleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1952
- Braley Motor Co. v. Northwest Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1935
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.