TAFT, J.
In view of the conclusion which we have reached, it is not necessary for us to consider whether the Court of Appeals was correct in determining that the plane was "taxiing" at the time it was damaged. We will assume that it was. However, we cannot agree with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the policy provided no coverage on account of "windstorm" damage to a plane while such plane was "taxiing."
There is no express provision of the policy...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
