Summary

Portrait of Edward Terry Sanford Edward Terry Sanford United States Fidelity Guaranty Company v…

We think that within the plain meaning of the policy the operator of the automobile was 'under the age limit fixed' by the ordinance. Ture it is that the ordinance does not fix a general age limit for operators of automobiles. but as the ordinance makes it unlawful for the owner of an automobile to permit a minor under eighteen years of age to operate it, to say that when the owner permits a minor only seventeen years of age to operate it the operator is not 'under the age limit fixed' by the ordinance, would be merely sticking in the bark.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Edward Terry Sanford Edward Terry Sanford United States Fidelity Guaranty Company v…

Coos County, 151 U.S. 452, 462, 14 S.C.t. 379, 381, 38 L. Ed. 231, this court said: 'It is settled * * * that, when an insurance contract is so drawn as to be ambiguous, or to require interpretation, or to be fairly susceptible of two different constructions, so that reasonably intelligent men, on reading the contract, would honestly differ as to the meaning thereof, that construction will be adopted which is most favorable to the insured.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature