Legal Opinion

(AMERICAN) LUMBERMENS MUT. CAS. CO. v. Timms & Howard

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided December 18, 1939No. 93, 94PublishedCited by 53 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CLARK, Circuit Judge.

Though these cases disclose procedural oddities, they show no attempt at procedural economy. The plaintiff seeks adjudications of non-liability on its policy of bodily injury and property damage liability issued to defendant Timms & Howard, Inc., on an automobile truck, on the ground that the particular accident which has resulted in the threat of claims against its insured occurred when the truck was being used otherwise than as provided in the policy. It has, however, brought two actions for declaratory judgments, one against its insured and the latter’s employee, the…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. QuarlesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1937
  2. Claim of Dependents of Marks v. GrayNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
  3. Young v. MasciSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
  4. Larkin v. . Nassau Electric R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1912
  5. Pacific Indemnity Co. v. McDonaldCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1939

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

3Cited by53 opinions

  1. Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. WestoverSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  2. Susan Defelice v. American International Life Assurance Company of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1997
  3. Ragin v. Harry Macklowe Real Estate Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
  4. Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1946
  5. Campbell v. American Foreign SS CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1941

48 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