Court Opinion

ID: 9420504
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:54:54.157048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:25.498158
License: Public Domain

*70Me. Justice Douglas,
dissenting.
We have here a question not of tort liability but of the determination of insurance coverage. The accidents which had been held to be covered by this insurance clause prior to 1942, when this contract was made, would therefore seem to be the reliable standards for interpretation. Board of Trade v. Hain S. S. Co., [1929] A. C. 534, and Attorney-General v. Adelaide S. S. Co., [1923] A. C. 292, dealt with this precise situation and held that where a ship engaged in a warlike operation collided with another vessel partly or wholly due to faulty navigation on its part the war insurer was liable. Adherence to British precedents in this field was early admonished. Queen Ins. Co. v. Globe Ins. Co., 263 U. S. 487, 493. The rule of the foregoing English cases is for me the most authentic standard for interpreting the present contract. See General Ins. Co. v. Link, 173 F. 2d 955. And none of the cases cited as casting doubt on their holdings presents a contrary result on a similar set of facts.