Stix v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court. — Hon. James Barnett, Judge. (1) The court erred in overruling the demurrer to the evidence because it appears, from the testimony offered by plaintiff (which was all the testimony on that subject), that the injury to the machine resulted from collision of the machine with the gutter and roadbed, the gutter being a part of the roadbed within the meaning of the law; therefore the damage to plaintiff’s machine was not covered by the policy…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court. — Hon. James Barnett, Judge. (1) The court erred in overruling the demurrer to the evidence because it appears, from the testimony offered by plaintiff (which was all the testimony on that subject), that the injury to the machine resulted from collision of the machine with the gutter and roadbed, the gutter being a part of the roadbed within the meaning of the law; therefore the damage to plaintiff’s machine was not covered by the policy in this case, which expressly excluded damages resulting from collision with any part of the roadbed. Plaintiff alleged…
1Opinion of the CourtNortoni, J.
This is a suit on a policy of insurance against loss or damage to an automobile caused solely by collision with another object. Plaintiff recovered and defendant prosecutes the appeal.
*175By the terms of the policy, loss or damage caused by striking any portion of the roadbed is excluded from the risk to be compensated, and the question for consideration concerns the interpretation of-this clause of the policy. The court instructed the jury that the guttering adjacent to the roadway and the sidewalk beyond, with which the automobile collided, were not a portion of the “roadbed.”
It appears…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Royal Insurance v. MartinSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Warren v. HenlySupreme Court of Iowa · 1870
- Meadows v. Pacific Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Keller v. Home Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Tucker v. Colonial Fire InsuranceWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1905
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Security Mutual Life Insurance v. AllenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1924
- Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. v. R. E. Parsons Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1932
- Universal Service Co. v. American InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
- United States Fire Ins. Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1935
- Bouse v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1920
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.