Legal Opinion
Hartford Fire Insurance v. Himelfarb
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided August 30, 1999No. 144, Sept. Term, 1998PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RODOWSKY, Judge.
This is an action under a commercial property policy by insureds against the insurer to recover for loss due to theft. The sole issue before us is whether the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment for the insurer based on the insurer’s contention that the insured had failed to comply with the sixty day time limit on filing a proof of loss that is provided by ¶ E.3.a(7) of the policy. Paragraph E.3.a(7) is set forth below, in the context of related provisions on which the insurer also relies.
“E. LOSS CONDITIONS
“The following conditions apply in addition to the Common…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1985
- Collier v. MD-Individual Practice Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1992
- Chirichella v. ErwinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1973
- McElroy v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1898
- Beckenheimer's Inc. v. Alameda Associates Ltd. PartnershipCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1992
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- B & P ENTERPRISES v. Overland Equipment Co.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2000
- Mercy Medical Center, Inc. v. United Healthcare of Mid-Atlantic, Inc.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2003
- Snyder v. Chester County Mutual InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2003
- Wineholt v. Cincinnati InsuranceDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 2001
- Gehani v. Am. Zurich Ins. Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 2017
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.