Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that it could not be assumed, without proof, that a premium was charged for the non-owned vehicle coverage
• “[T]here is no sound reason why there should be a doubling or multiplying of the limits of liability simply because the insured was operating a non-owned car.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).