Frederiksen v. EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY ASSUR. CORPORATION, LIMITED, OF LONDON, ENGLAND
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
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
- Dickinson v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1924
3Cited by25 opinions
- Vezolles v. Home Indemnity Co., New YorkDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1941
- Trotter v. Union Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1929
- Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. PlummerDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1935
- Parks v. HallLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1937
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. BrannCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1944
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.