Legal Opinion

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. McInnish

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 6, 1969No. 6 Div. 605PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

COLEMAN, Justice.

Citation is scarcely necessary to support the rule which has been stated as follows :

“If an insurance contract is so drawn as to be equivocal, uncertain or ambiguous, or to require interpretation because fairly susceptible to two or more different interpretations, the one will be adopted, which, if consistent with the objects of insurance, as most favorable to the insured.....” Trans-Continental Mutual Insurance Co. v. Harrison, 262 Ala. 373, 377, 78 So.2d 917, 921, 51 A.L.R.2d 917.

The policy provision here under consideration is stated by the Court of Appeals as follows:

*493“…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Trans-Continental Mutual Insurance Co. v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1955
  2. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. McInnishAlabama Court of Appeals · 1968

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Universal Underwriters Insurance v. Marriott Homes, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1970
  2. Thomas L. Burton and Edith M. Burton v. State Farm Fire and Casualty CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976
  3. US Fidelity & Guaranty Corp. v. Elba Wood Products, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1976
  4. Thomas L. Burton and Edith M. Burton v. State Farm Fire and Casualty CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API