State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. J. Paxson Amis, Administrator of the Estate of W. G. Evans, Deceased

Sixth Circuit

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. J. Paxson Amis, Administrator of the Estate of W. G. Evans, Deceased

234 F.2d 119, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3674

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJune 8, 1956

Docket12690_1

StatusPublished

This text of 234 F.2d 119 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. J. Paxson Amis, Administrator of the Estate of W. G. Evans, Deceased) 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

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. J. Paxson Amis, Administrator of the Estate of W. G. Evans, Deceased, 234 F.2d 119, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3674 (6th Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a judgment entered in the United States District Court against the appellant insurer involves the issue of whether a clause in an insurance policy, relating to the replacement of a newly acquired automobile for the automobile described in the policy, covered a new two-ton truck bought by the insured where the car described in the policy was traded in on the truck.

The United States District Judge held that, upon all the evidence in the case, he was of opinion that the truck in fact replaced the originally insured car, for both pleasure and business, so as to be covered by the policy of insurance, no primary or exclusive commercial use having been shown sufficiently to warrant a finding that the truck was being operated other than in the manner expressly permitted under the policy terms as a pleasure and business vehicle.

After due consideration and deliberation upon the record and upon the oral arguments and printed briefs of the contending attorneys, we hold that, for the reasons stated in his opinion, which served as findings of fact and conclusions of law, Judge Darr decided the case correctly.

*120 The judgment of the district court, as modified by that court, is therefore affirmed; and the cause is remanded for determination of the fee to be allowed to attorneys for appellee and for such further proceedings as shall be in conformity with this per curiam.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a judgment entered in the United States District Court against the appellant insurer involves the issue of whether a clause in an insurance policy, relating to the replacement of a newly acquired automobile for the automobile described in the policy, covered a new two-ton truck bought by the insured where the car described in the policy was traded in on the truck.

The United States District Judge held that, upon all the evidence in the case, he was of opinion that the truck in fact replaced the originally insured car, for both pleasure and business, so as to be covered by the policy of insurance, no primary or exclusive commercial use having been shown sufficiently to warrant a finding that the truck was being operated other than in the manner expressly permitted under the policy terms as a pleasure and business vehicle.

After due consideration and deliberation upon the record and upon the oral arguments and printed briefs of the contending attorneys, we hold that, for the reasons stated in his opinion, which served as findings of fact and conclusions of law, Judge Darr decided the case correctly.

*120 The judgment of the district court, as modified by that court, is therefore affirmed; and the cause is remanded for determination of the fee to be allowed to attorneys for appellee and for such further proceedings as shall be in conformity with this per curiam.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 F.2d 119, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-company-v-j-paxson-amis-ca6-1956.