Crawford v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a fellow employee exclusion is a valid limitation on liability coverage
• explaining that the fact that worker was paid by the completed unit and not by the hour was an “important index” that the worker was an independent contractor
• construing the term “employee” in insurance policy according to common law right-to-control test, which is a “safe guide”
• upholding, prior to passage of Vermont's financial responsibility act, a co-employee exclusion in business automobile insurance policy
• in answering the “perplexing question” of whether worker is “employee” under insurance policy, “the common law decisions on the relationship of master and servant afford a safe guide”
• in answering the “perplexing question” of whether worker is “employee” under insurance policy, “the common law decisions on the relationship of master and servant afford a safe guide”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).