Legal Opinion

Frederiksen v. EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY ASSUR. CORPORATION, LIMITED, OF LONDON, ENGLAND

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided April 30, 1928No. 5333PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GILBERT, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).

That the trial court properly instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendants is too plain to require discussion. By no permissible construction of the terms of the insurance policies can it be held that Bryson at the time of the accident was using the automobile with the permission of the insured, or with the permission of any member of his family.

The plaintiff in error relies upon the ease of Dickinson v. Maryland Casualty Co., 101 Conn. 369, 125 A. 866, 41 A. L. R. 500. But the facts in that ease were distinctly different…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Dickinson v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1924

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Vezolles v. Home Indemnity Co., New YorkDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1941
  2. Trotter v. Union Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1929
  3. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. PlummerDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1935
  4. Parks v. HallLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1937
  5. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. BrannCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1944

20 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