Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Hartzell Bros.

Ohio Supreme Court

Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Hartzell Bros.

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 211

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 18, 1924

DocketNo. 17984

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 211 (Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Hartzell Bros.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Hartzell Bros., 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 211 (Ohio 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

JONES, J.

For the purpose of limiting liability, a [212]*212policy of insurance contained a provision that its issuer should not he liable for any loss whatever on silks or articles made entirely or principally of that material. Held:

That such provision is plain and unambiguous and that a loss of silk shirts was not covered under the policy; nor was parol evidence admissible to contradict such provision or to prove that the parties so interpreted it as to give coverage for silk shirts.

Judgment reversed.

Marshall, C. J., Robinson, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur. Wanamaker, J., not participating.

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

JONES, J.

For the purpose of limiting liability, a [212]*212policy of insurance contained a provision that its issuer should not he liable for any loss whatever on silks or articles made entirely or principally of that material. Held:

That such provision is plain and unambiguous and that a loss of silk shirts was not covered under the policy; nor was parol evidence admissible to contradict such provision or to prove that the parties so interpreted it as to give coverage for silk shirts.

Judgment reversed.

Marshall, C. J., Robinson, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur. Wanamaker, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fidelity-casualty-co-v-hartzell-bros-ohio-1924.