Boston Insurance v. Farmers Bank

Sixth Circuit

Boston Insurance v. Farmers Bank

245 F.2d 241

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 30, 1957

DocketNo. 13022

StatusPublished

This text of 245 F.2d 241 (Boston Insurance v. Farmers Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boston Insurance v. Farmers Bank, 245 F.2d 241 (6th Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment holding the appellant insurers liable for the full face amount of their policies covering losses to the appellee’s property caused by an explosion. The issue is whether the provisions of the apportionment clauses contained in the appellants’ policies were operative, by reason of the existence a banker’s blanket bond insurance policy, the face value of which, combined with that of the appellants’ policies, exceeded the amount of the loss. The district court held that the banker’s blanket bond policy was applicable only to the extent that the loss exceeded the face amount of the appellants’ policies, and that the apportionment clauses were therefore inapplicable. Despite the ingenious argument of able counsel, we are not persuaded that the district court’s conclusion was in error.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment holding the appellant insurers liable for the full face amount of their policies covering losses to the appellee’s property caused by an explosion. The issue is whether the provisions of the apportionment clauses contained in the appellants’ policies were operative, by reason of the existence a banker’s blanket bond insurance policy, the face value of which, combined with that of the appellants’ policies, exceeded the amount of the loss. The district court held that the banker’s blanket bond policy was applicable only to the extent that the loss exceeded the face amount of the appellants’ policies, and that the apportionment clauses were therefore inapplicable. Despite the ingenious argument of able counsel, we are not persuaded that the district court’s conclusion was in error.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 F.2d 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boston-insurance-v-farmers-bank-ca6-1957.