Legal Opinion

Queen Insurance v. Watson

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided February 21, 1927No. Civil No. 2561PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRoss, C. J.

-H. M. Watson aiicl Rasmus Nielson, doing business as Arizona Ginning Company, a partnership, were the holders of a valid and subsisting fire policy in the Queen Insurance Company, and on September 28, 1924, they suffered damages, by a fire of unknown origin, to seventeen bales of cotton, resulting in an almost total loss, and, the insurance company refusing to pay such loss or damages, this suit was instituted to compel payment. A jury trial resulted in a verdict for the full amount claimed, and judgment was entered accordingly.

The defendant insurance company, appealing, makes several…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Scottish Union & National Insurance v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Wild Rice Lumber Co. v. Royal InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
  3. Park Rapids Lumber Co. v. Ætna InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
  4. Taber Lumber Co. v. Liverpool & London & Globe InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1919

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. D. M. A. F. B. Federal Credit Union v. Employers Mutual Liability InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Harbor Insurance v. United Services Automobile Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1976
  3. Heard v. Farmers Insurance Exchange CompanyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1972
  4. Home Indemnity Company v. WilsonArizona Supreme Court · 1971
  5. Dykeman v. Mission Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1970

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API