Buckeye Union Casualty Co. v. Royal Indemnity Ins.

I concur in that part of the opinion finding that the policy of Royal Indemnity Insurance Company does not extend coverage to Zum or Zum’s washboy — in the absence of facts that Zum or the plaintiff in the pending or contemplated tort actions can supply. It should be clearly understood that since they are not parties to this action they are in no respect bound by the decision in the event, upon judgment, a supplemental petition were to be filed.

Coverage depends upon the concurrence of two elements specified in each policy:

1. Definition of Hazards

“Ownership, maintenance or use of an automobile…