Gibraltar Financial Corp. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that conversion exclusion in loss payable clause did not bar recovery by lienholder where lienholder did not have immediate right to possess vehicle intentionally destroyed by owner
• holding that burning of vehicle by owner did not constitute conversion
• burning of an insured automobile by mortgagor did not constitute conversion because, at the time of the arson, no one other than the owner/mortgagor had an immediate right to possess the automobile; therefore, the mortgagee's recovery under the policy was not precluded
• burning of an insured automobile by mortgagor did not constitute conversion because, at the time of the arson, no one other than the owner/mortgagor had an immediate right to possess the automobile; therefore, the mortgagee’s recovery under the policy was not precluded
• \It is a standard rule of construction that interpretations which result in meaningless words are to be avoided\
• “It is a standard rule of construction that interpretations which result in meaningless words are to be avoided”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).