Legal Opinion
Travelers Insurance v. Greenough
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided February 2, 1937PublishedCited by 39 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, C. J.
This clause is a part of the policy: “The coverage provided herein to a person responsible for the operation of the named Assured’s motor vehicle with his express or implied consent is extended to uses authorized by such person whether or not the particular use was authorized by the named Assured.”
The clause did not promise indemnity for a use unpermitted by the named assured. No action on the policy could be successfully maintained without proof of a permitted use. Raymond v. Company, 86 N. H. 93. A use not consented to is uninsured equally with a forbidden use. By no fair construction of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Faulkner v. KeeneSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1931
- Sauriolle v. O'GormanSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1932
- American Motorists Insurance v. Central GarageSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1933
3Cited by39 opinions
- Pace Corporation v. JacksonTexas Supreme Court · 1955
- Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., in No. 75-2405 v. Videfreeze Corporation, and David E. Chinnery Development Corp., Inno. 75-2406Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
- Pacific Portland Cement Co. v. Food MacHinery & Chemical CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1950
- Hodgdon v. CampbellSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1980
- MFA Mut. Ins. Co. v. QuinnMissouri Court of Appeals · 1953
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.