Legal Opinion

Travelers Ins. v. Buckeye Union Casualty Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 20, 1961No. 36821Published

1Opinion of the CourtKerns, J.

At the outset, it is clear that the provisions of the insurance policy issued to Gulf by Travelers could neither enlarge nor restrict the coverage of the policy issued by Buckeye to McCracken. We are only concerned, therefore, with the contract between Buckeye and McCracken, and in construing the latter contract it is fundamental, of course, that the intent of the parties thereto, when ascertained, will be controlling. In other words, did Buckeye and McCracken intend to protect Gulf when their contract was executed?

Provisions of insurance policies similar to those now under consideration have…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Wagman v. American Fidelity & Casualty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1952
  2. Raffel v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
  3. Stammer v. KitzmillerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Pacific Automobile Ins. v. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co. of New YorkUtah Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Allstate Insurance Company v. ValdezDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1961

7 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