Legal Opinion · Dissent
Winterwerp v. Allstate Insurance
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided June 11, 1976No. [No. 152, September Term, 1975.]Published
1Dissent
*722 Smith, J.,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
The majority quotes from Judge Chesnut’s opinion in Aler v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 92 F. Supp. 620 (D. Md. 1950), as to the purpose of the clause here under consideration. They would have done well to have quoted the remainder of the quoted paragraph which stated:
“More specifically the evident intention of the limitation with respect to other automobiles is to prevent a situation in which the members of one family or household may have two or more automobiles actually or potentially used interchangeably but with only one particular automobile…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Rodenkirk ex rel. Deitenbach v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1945
- Aler v. Travelers Indemnity Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1950
- Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co. v. PulsiferDistrict Court, D. Maine · 1941
- Pacific Automobile Insurance v. LewisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Boedigheimer v. TaylorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.