Murphy & Co. v. Manufacturers' Casualty Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Keller, J.,
This was an action of assumpsit on a policy of automobile casualty insurance. The learned court below directed a verdict for the plaintiff. The assignments of error complain of the refusal of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant or enter judgment in its favor non obstante veredicto.
The appellant contends that it was entitled to binding instructions on two grounds: (1) Because, contrary to the statement in the plaintiff’s application for insurance, the automobile causing the injury was used for “commercial delivery”; and (2) because the plaintiff settled the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- St. Louis Dressed Beef & Provision Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Brassil v. . Maryland Casualty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1914
- Butler Bros. v. American Fidelity Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Interstate Casualty Co. v. Wallins Creek Coal Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1915
- Aetna Life Insurance v. Bowling Green Gas Light Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Brakeman v. Potomac Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Sparler v. Fireman's Insurance Co. of NewarkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Thomas W. Hooley & Sons v. Zurich General Accident & Liability InsuranceSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1958
- Roberts v. Fireman's Ins. Co. of NJSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- United States Guarantee Co. v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1943
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.