Golden v. Lerch Bros. Inc.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Dissent
I regret that I am unable to agree with the conclusions reached by the majority. The problem presented, as I view the case, has to do with the construction of ambiguous provisions in certain liability insurance policies. That the provisions here involved are ambiguous is evidenced by the fact that the courts which have passed upon the question disagree as to the construction to be given the policies. As stated by Mr. Justice Stone in the majority opinion, "The cases are in hopeless conflict." If courts cannot agree as to how these policies should be construed, laymen must be at a loss to know…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Victory Sparkler & Specialty Co. v. FrancksCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1925
- Chapin v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1914
- Soukup v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1937
- H. P. Hood & Sons v. Maryland Casualty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
- American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Agricola FurnaceSupreme Court of Alabama · 1938
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Golden v. Lerch Bros. Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1941