Part 10, page 43
Document date 26 January 1975
FBI 164-81, Vault Part 10 p. 43 (DB Cooper-1259), News clipping, dated 26 Jan 1975 — cooper.theunsolved.net/parts/Cooper-Part-10/pages/43
Transcript
The scan is the source; the transcript is machine-generated from it.
Page 12A REGISTER-GUARD, Eugene, Ore., Sunday, January 26, 1975
---
Judges feel bill scants Lane courts
Two bills introduced in the Legislature would give Lane County one additional Circuit Court judge and one more District Court judge — but that's fewer than Lane Courts feel they need.
Sponsored by the Oregon State Bar Assn. HB 2221 would add one new circuit judge each to Lane, Marion and Clackamas counties, and provide an additional circuit judge for the district made up of Crook, Deschutes, Gilliam, Grant, Jefferson and Wheeler counties. HB 2216 would provide one district [text cut off]
---
Hijack loss ruled insured
ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that an insurance company must reimburse Northwest Airlines for $180,000 of the $200,000 lost in the "D. B. Cooper" hijacking in 1971.
The company carried a "blanket crime policy" with Globe Indemnity Co., New York, with a $20,000 deductible.
A passenger identified as D. B. Cooper hijacked Northwest Flight 105 on Nov. 24, 1971, threatening to blow up the plane unless he was given $200,000 and a parachute.
The money was furnished at Seattle, Wash., and Cooper apparently parachuted from a rear door of the plane between Seattle and Portland. Neither Cooper nor the money has been located.
One portion of the insurance policy covered loss of money within the company premises or while being conveyed by a messenger.
The insurance company argued that its policy was intended to cover funds from ticket sales and other money normally in company coffers, not money borrowed to meet a threat. The airline borrowed the $200,000 from a Seattle bank.
The court held that extortion was covered by the broad language of the policy and that the plane was part of the airline "premises."
Writing for the court, Justice Lawrence Yetka said that even though hijacking was not envisioned, it is covered since it was not specifically excluded by the insurer.
Yetka said it is a "well settled" rule of law that ambiguous language in an insurance policy will be strictly construed in favor of the insured party.
---
DB Cooper-1259