Legal Opinion
Marine Equipment Corp. v. Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided June 23, 1927PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
THACHER, District Judge.
The policy in suit was written upon a printed1 form, to which several riders were attached prior to delivery. The policy itself indemnifies the *601assured against damages resulting from various causes, but specifically excepts damages resulting “from the bursting or explosion of boilers, collapsing of flues, or any injury, derangement, or breakage of machinery, unless caused by stress of weather, stranding, collision, or burning.” Attached to and forming part of this policy there is a rider headed “A. I. A. Ocean Tug Special,” to which reference was made in the policy…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ætna Ins. v. Sacramento-Stockton S. S. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1921
- Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Coal Co. v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1925
- Firemen's Ins. Co. v. LaskerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1927
- Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co. v. Winter Garden Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1925
- Gunther v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York · 1888
3Cited by1 opinion
- Independence Indemnity Co. v. W. J. Jones & Son, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1933