Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. v. Blue

The claim first to be considered here is that there is no judgment against Tullis; that he is the “assured” under clause 5; that Haltiwanger was not the assured under such policy. This question was before the Supreme Court of Connecticut, where the clauses of the policy were in the language of the one we are considering. Dickinson v. Maryland Cas. Co., 101 Conn. 369, 125 A. 866, 41 A. L. R. 500. That court held that when the assured permitted his car to be used by another, and while so being used a third person was injured, and he recovered a judgment against the operator of the ear, he could…