Legal Opinion · Dissent
Crawford v. AMERICAN EMPLOYERS'INSURANCE CO.
New Mexico Court of Appeals
Decided August 5, 1974No. 1054Published
1DissentSutin, Judge
I respectfully dissent.
Judgment should be granted defendant because: (A) There was no insurance coverage. (B) Defendant conducted its defense under a reservation of rights. (C) Defendant was entitled to a directed verdict.
(A) There was no insurance coverage.
On April 13, 1972, in chambers, before the beginning of trial, in a discussion between court and counsel, the trial court stated:
So, I take it that it is for me to determine and that I must put my shoes in the cement on that question at this stage, and hold, as a matter of law, the exclusionary clause does apply. There was no primary…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Allstate Insurance v. KellerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1958
- Apex Mutual Insurance v. ChristnerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1968
- Radcliffe v. Franklin National InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1956
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1961
- Raymond Pendleton v. Pan American Fire and Casualty CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1963
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.