Legal Opinion
Price v. United Pacific Casualty Insurance
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided February 18, 1936PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRossman, J.
The defendant admits that on February 19, 1933, it executed the policy of insurance described in the complaint. The material parts of the policy are:
“To indemnify the assured for all loss by burglary, robbery, theft or larceny of any of the property insured hereunder, from within the premises occupied by the assured and as hereinafter defined, committed by a guest or by any domestic servant or other employee of the assured or by any person whose property is not covered hereby; * * * It is agreed that the insurance * * * shall apply to all such property owned by the .assured or by any…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- B. N. Exton & Co. v. Home Fire & Marine InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Oatman v. Bankers' Fire Relief Ass'nOregon Supreme Court · 1913
- Windsor Manufacturing Co. v. Globe & Rutgers Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Hirsch v. City of New York InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1924
- Lewis v. Continental Causalty Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1930
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. v. ThompsonUtah Supreme Court · 1955
- Fenter v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1971
- Avrit v. Forest Industries Insurance ExchangeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985