Carroll v. Girard Fire Insurance of the City of Philadelphia
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Hayne, C.
— Action upon a policy of insurance; verdict and judgment for plaintiff. The grounds for reversal urged by counsel for appellant may be reduced to two.
1. The policy requires that in case of loss the assured shall “ forthwith ” give notice thereof, “ and shall also produce ” a certificate from a notary or magistrate to the effect that he has examined into the circumstances, and believes that the assured has sustained the loss without fraud on his part. These things were not done. But the evidence shows that when the claim was brought to the attention of the company it made no…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Old Saucelito Land & Dry Dock Co. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1884
- Adams v. South British & National Fire & Marine Insurance Companies of New ZealandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by46 opinions
- Bollinger v. National Fire InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Farnum v. Phoenix InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Bernhard v. Rochester German InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1906
- Southern Mutual Insurance v. TurnleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Chippewa Lumber Co. v. Phenix InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.