Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

INDUSTRIAL PAPER CORDAGE CO. vs. AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY. SAME vs. THE WORLD FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY. SAME vs. PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. SHAW PAPER BOX COMPANY vs. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA. SAME vs. PROVIDENCE WASHINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY.

(1) Insurance § 146 (3). Liberal or Strict Construction. Where insurance policies are not ambiguous, the rule that ambiguous insurance policies will be construed most favorably to the insured has no application.

PER CURIAM.

After the filing of our opinion in the above entitled cases the plaintiffs, by leave of court, filed motions for reargument.

We have carefully considered the reasons advanced by them in support of their motions and are of the opinion that such motions contain no matter which was not fully considered and passed upon before the filing of our opinion.

The case of Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Newman's, Inc., 108 Fed. (2d) 561, again called to our attention by the plaintiffs, was, in the preparation of our opinion, given full consideration. We assumed, in view of the plaintiffs' contentions, that the policy involved therein was in the same form as the policies before us in the instant cases.

Also, we do not perceive any inconsistency, such as is now urged by the plaintiffs, in our holdings in Newberger v. New York Life Ins. Co., 56 R.I. 442 and those in the present cases. In the Newberger cases we made our own independent finding, based on our examination of the policies then under consideration, that the language used in such policies was not clear and unambiguous but was, without evidence, susceptible of different interpretations. We referred to conflicting decisions from other jurisdictions relating to similar policies as an indication of support for our own conclusion. In the instant cases, however, we have decided that the disputed portions of the policies now before us are not ambiguous. The rule mentioned in the Newberger cases, therefore, has no application herein.

Motions for reargument denied and dismissed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

IND. PAPER CORDAGE CO. v. AETNA INS. CO
(Oct 18, 1940)