Rea v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Company

MORRIS, Judge.

Appellant, by its 44 exceptions and 37 assignments of error, excepts to each finding of fact and conclusion made by the court and to the entry of judgment.

By its first two assignments of error, appellant contends that the evidence does not support coverage under the policy for Mabel Rea or Helms under any theory alleged in the complaint nor do the allegations of the complaint support the theory upon which the court apparently decided this case. Appellant’s theory is that the complaint in its paragraph 5 uses the language of the “Employers’ Non-Ownership Liability” endorsement…