Legal Opinion

Haisten v. Audubon Indem. Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided May 6, 1994No. 1921326, 1921378PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

These appeals are from a judgment declaring that the plaintiff insurer is not obligated to provide coverage for the acts alleged in an underlying tort action. One appeal questions whether the trial court erred in holding applicable a provision in the insurance policy excluding coverage for injuries "expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured." The other appeal questions whether the trial court erred in holding that a party who had contracted for indemnity from the insured was not entitled to coverage as an additional insured, because of cases holding that indemnity contracts such…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Reed v. BrunsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1988
  2. Continental Western Insurance v. ToalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
  3. US Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Alabama · 1985
  4. Ala. Farm Bureau Mut. Cas. Ins. v. DyerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1984
  5. Bailey v. HoggSupreme Court of Alabama · 1989

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Tanner v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2003
  2. Ala. Plating v. US Fidelity and Guar.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1997
  3. Fowler v. Jenkins (In Re Jenkins)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · 2001
  4. Ex Parte CanadaSupreme Court of Alabama · 2004
  5. Pettibone v. TysonSupreme Court of Alabama · 2001

2 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