Maryland Casualty Co. v. Jinks
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. v. Ed Soules Const. Co. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)
- Great American Indemnity Co. v. Smith (Fla. 1945)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Plaintiff in Error brought this action *374 against defendant in error to recover premium on a Workman’s Compensation policy. At the conclusion of the testimony, plaintiff took non-suit with bill of exceptions. The judgment is here for review on writ of error.
The question presented is whether or not, when the policy names certain occupations, would the insured be liable for premium on other occupations in which the insured was engaged which are not designated in the policy?
Plaintiff in error contends-that the policy read and construed as a whole requires that this question be answered in the affirmative. The policy in this case specified each occupation insured by code number. The question turns on the interpretation of the contract. No other question is involved. We find no reason to reverse the judgment below on this point.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.