Legal Opinion

Armstrong v. Western Manufacturers' Mutual Insurance

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 10, 1893PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Error to Kent. (Grove, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiffs bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.

This is an action to recover for loss by fire upon a policy of insurance issued by the defendant to the plaintiffs. The learned circuit judge excluded the policy, and directed a verdict for the defendant, upon the ground that the policy was void under the law of this State, in *139regard to insurance companies, because it contained a clause not provided for by the Michigan standard policy.

Section 6 of the insurance act prohibits the issue of any policy containing any other or different terms or conditions than those expressed in the Michigan standard policy. It then declares:

“Every policy or…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Beecher v. Marquette & Pacific Rolling Mill Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1881

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Gazzam v. German Union Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  2. Lea v. Atlantic InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  3. Ingold v. City of HickorySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
  4. Coverdill v. Northern Insurance Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Ruffino v. Queen InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934

3 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