Washington Law Review
Abstract
Plaintiff's truck was hit by a tree felled by a logging contractor's employee. The truck was insured by defendant insurance company against damage due to collision, but plaintiff had not purchased coverage under the comprehensive clause. Plaintiff brought an action against defendant insurer for the loss. Relying upon the language of the unpurchased comprehensive clause, the trial court held that defendant's liability did not include loss caused by falling objects. On appeal, a divided Montana Supreme Court reversed. Held: When an insured does not purchase one form of insurance coverage, the insurer may not deny liability on the basis that the loss was excluded from the purchased coverage by the unpurchased provision. Jones v. Virginia Sur. Co., 401 P.2d 570 (Mont. 1965).
First Page
350
Recommended Citation
anon,
Recent Developments,
Limiting Language in Unpurchased Policy Provision Does Not Apply to Purchased Coverage,
41 Wash. L. Rev.
350
(1966).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol41/iss2/10