Legal Opinion
Williams v. Pacific States Fire Ins. Co.
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided October 14, 1926PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBean, J.
At the trial the plaintiffs by consent amended their complaint by adding a new paragraph as follows:
“That said policy of insurance, Exhibit ‘A’ was furnished and delivered to the plaintiffs at the United States National Bank of Portland, Oregon, by the defendant’s agent, who was acquainted with all the facts in the premises, or was correctly informed thereof, or failed to inquire concerning the same, and who transmitted to the defendant the information upon which the same was written; that the plaintiffs never saw said policy until after the fire and did not know the contents thereof, and did…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Kausal v. Minnesota Farmers' Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Wheaton v. North British and Merchantile InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Aetna Insurance Co., of Hartford v. BrannonTexas Supreme Court · 1905
- Medley v. German Alliance InsuranceWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1904
- Kister v. Lebanon Mutual Ins., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, York County1889
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Comer v. World Insurance Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1957
- Eaid v. National Casualty Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1927
- Kabban v. MacKinCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
- Bird v. Central Manufacturers Mutual InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1941
- Bays v. Farmers' Mutual Fire Ass'n of W. Va.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1933
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.