Legal Opinion
Munich Re-Insurance Co. v. United Surety Co.
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided June 26, 1913PublishedCited by 6 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Cross-appeals from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City (Bond, J.). The two appeals were argued together before Boyd. C. J., Burke, Pattison, Urner, Stockbridge and Constable, JJ.
1Opinion of the CourtUrner, J.
An agreement executed in the early part of 1906 between the Munich Re-Insurance Company and the 'nited Siretv Company, contained the fodowing clauses upon whose construction the questions raised by this appeal depend:
“Article I. The ‘United’ agrees to cede to the ‘Munich,’ and the ‘Munich’ agrees to accept, a one-third (-J-) share of the amount insured or renewed under every bond, policy or guarantee which shall be issued by the ‘United’ in the territory of the United States, for indemnification against loss under the three classes of insurance known as Surety, Eidelity and Burglary…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Munich Re-Insurance Co. v. United Surety Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1910
- United States v. PoeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1913
3Cited by6 opinions
- Poe v. Munich Re-Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1915
- Hicks v. PoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Schlens v. PoeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1916
- National Mutual Church Insurance v. MagillAppellate Court of Illinois · 1940
- Poe v. Munich Reinsurance Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1921
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.