Legal Opinion
Vance Trucking Co. v. Canal Insurance
District Court, D. South Carolina
Decided March 9, 1966No. Civ. A. No. 4364PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HEMPHILL, District Judge.
Plaintiff and defendant insurance companies, by cross motions and oppositions to same, seek this forum’s decision as to their individual or collective obligations to their named insured and others. The determination is whether coverage is properly classified as primary and secondary — excess, or concurrent and pro rata. Allstate insists that Canal has primary responsibility protecting both Yance, Allstate’s insured, and Forrester, Canal’s named insured. Canal urges pro rata re*94sponsibility. Each relies on policy inclusions and exclusions of both as dissected together…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. Oregon Automobile InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1959
- Oregon Auto. Ins. Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1952
- Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance v. Continental Casualty Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1959
- American Surety Company of New York, and Cross-Appellee v. Canal Insurance Company, and Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1958
- Continental Cas. Co. v. WeekesSupreme Court of Florida · 1954
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Werley v. United Services Automobile AssociationAlaska Supreme Court · 1972
- Sloviaczek v. Estate of PuckettIdaho Supreme Court · 1977
- Vance Trucking Co. v. Canal InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1968
- MacLoskie v. Royal Indemnity CompanyDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1966
- Russell v. PaulsonUtah Supreme Court · 1966
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.