Boedigheimer v. Taylor

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that there is no need to define or interpret clear and unambiguous language in an insurance contract
• stating that there is no need to define or interpret clear and unambiguous language in an insurance contract
• “consideration is to be given to the agreement by which the owner of the insured automobile was permitted to use the non-owned automobile, as well as his actual use thereof’
• insured seeking coverage for collision in which he was driving an automobile owned by someone else must establish proof of the existence of an insurance contract and compliance with the “non-owned automobile” definition in the policy
• noting burden of proving existence of coverage rests with insured

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).