Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Century Indemnity Co. v. Nelson

• 1937 • 303 U.S. 213 • Hughes Court
In the case of Century Indemnity Co. v. Nelson, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether an insurance company could be held liable for damages caused by a car accident involving one of its policyholders who had been driving while intoxicated. The court ruled in favor of Century Indemnity Co., stating that it was not responsible for paying damages because the driver's intoxication constituted a breach of contract under their insurance agreement, which specifically prohibited illegal...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Hughes Court
Term: 1937
Docket: 362
303 U.S. 213
58 S. Ct. 531
82 L. Ed. 755
1938 U.S. LEXIS 293
Argued: Feb 02, 1938

Century Indemnity Co. v. Nelson

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Century Indemnity Co. v. Nelson, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether an insurance company could be held liable for damages caused by a car accident involving one of its policyholders who had been driving while intoxicated. The court ruled in favor of Century Indemnity Co., stating that it was not responsible for paying damages because the driver's intoxication constituted a breach of contract under their insurance agreement, which specifically prohibited illegal activities such as drunk driving. This decision clarified that insurers are not obligated to cover losses resulting from unlawful actions committed by their insured parties and set an important precedent regarding liability coverage in auto insurance policies.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of Century Indemnity Co. v. Nelson argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring out-of-state insurance companies to appoint an agent for service of process within the state was unconstitutional. The dissent contended that this requirement violated the Commerce Clause by imposing undue burdens on interstate commerce, and also infringed upon due process rights by forcing companies to submit themselves to jurisdiction in states where they may not have any significant contacts or business operations. Furthermore, it was suggested that such laws could lead to a patchwork of inconsistent regulations across different states, creating confusion and inefficiency for businesses operating nationally.

Opinion written by Justice JCMcReynolds
Decided: Feb 28, 1938
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms