Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Thompson

Montana Supreme Court

Decided October 27, 1967No. 11313Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Haswell

(specially concurring in part and dissenting in part) :

I concur in the result reached by the majority finding a breach of duty to defend by State Farm and awarding Thompson the sum of $2,500 by reason thereof. I do not agree however, that the duty to defend arises from ambiguous policy provisions construed in favor of the insured, Thompson. In my opinion the policy provisions relating to the duty to defend are clear, definite, unambiguous, and impose no duty on State Farm to defend in the instant situation under any recognized principles of construction. Under the terms of the policy, State…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. KraftCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
  2. Jones v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1939
  3. Atlantic Co. v. Citizens Ice & Cold Storage Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1949
  4. Marcus Breier Sons, Inc. v. Marvlo Fabrics, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1949
  5. Dutton v. Cities Service Defense Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1952

1 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