True v. American Fidelity Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

True v. American Fidelity Co.

224 N.E.2d 497, 352 Mass. 764

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 1, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 224 N.E.2d 497 (True v. American Fidelity Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

True v. American Fidelity Co., 224 N.E.2d 497, 352 Mass. 764 (Mass. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an action of contract against an insurer under a policy of insurance which provided coverage for “Damages for Bodily Injury Caused by Uninsured Automobiles.” This clause is generally referred to as “uninsured motorist” coverage. The plaintiff sustained injuries in an accident while a passenger in an automobile. The judge, sitting without a jury, after making some “Findings of Facts” made a general finding for the plaintiff. The defendant did not file any requests for rulings but merely excepted “to the finding of the [cjourt in favor of the plaintiff.” The issue of the propriety of the general finding for the plaintiff was not presented by the defendant’s exception. “Apart from the exceptional rule of the Leshefsky case [Leshefsky v. American Employers’ Ins. Co. 293 Mass. 164, 166-167], an exception to a finding does not present the question whether it was warranted by the evidence.” Matter of Loeb, 315 Mass. 191, 194. The issue should have been raised at the trial by a request for ruling.

Exceptions overruled.

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

This is an action of contract against an insurer under a policy of insurance which provided coverage for “Damages for Bodily Injury Caused by Uninsured Automobiles.” This clause is generally referred to as “uninsured motorist” coverage. The plaintiff sustained injuries in an accident while a passenger in an automobile. The judge, sitting without a jury, after making some “Findings of Facts” made a general finding for the plaintiff. The defendant did not file any requests for rulings but merely excepted “to the finding of the [cjourt in favor of the plaintiff.” The issue of the propriety of the general finding for the plaintiff was not presented by the defendant’s exception. “Apart from the exceptional rule of the Leshefsky case [Leshefsky v. American Employers’ Ins. Co. 293 Mass. 164, 166-167], an exception to a finding does not present the question whether it was warranted by the evidence.” Matter of Loeb, 315 Mass. 191, 194. The issue should have been raised at the trial by a request for ruling.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 N.E.2d 497, 352 Mass. 764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/true-v-american-fidelity-co-mass-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack