Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Continental Casualty Company v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Mississippi Supreme Court
Decided August 24, 2017No. 2016-CA-00359-SCTPublished
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
RANDOLPH, PRESIDING JUSTICE,
CONCURRINGTN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART:
¶ 79. It is irrefutable that the underlying claim made by Williams against Peters was precipitated by Peters’s operating the Continental insured boat in revérse at a time when the mooring line remained secured between the boat and the wench on the trailer. If the boat had not reversed its course, the handle of the wench would not have recoiled) causing injury to Williams.
¶ 80. It is undisputed that Continental provided the only coverage for boating liability protection. Similarly, Allstate provided the only áuto liability…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Travelers Indemnity Company v. ChappellMississippi Supreme Court · 1971
- Berry v. Lamar Life Ins. Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1932
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Chicago Ins. Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1996
- Phœnix Insurance v. CopelandSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Universal Underwriters Ins.Mississippi Supreme Court · 2001
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.