Cannell v. Phœnix Ins. Co.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions to the rulings of Croddard, J., of the superior court. Defendants also filed a motion to set aside the verdict as being against evidence. Assumpsit upon a policy of insurance against loss by fire, on dwelling-house and barn.
Read the full summary
On exceptions to the rulings of Croddard, J., of the superior court. Defendants also filed a motion to set aside the verdict as being against evidence. Assumpsit upon a policy of insurance against loss by fire, on dwelling-house and barn. Tlie ground of defense was that the policy provided, that it should become and be void, if the premises insured remained vacant and unoccupied for more than thirty days without the consent of the company written on the policy; and that in fact the buildings insured were vacant and unoccupied at the time of the fire, and had then been so vacant and unoccupied…
1Opinion of the CourtBarrows, J.
Item four of the provisions appended to the contract of indemnity, which the defendants gave the plaintiff, consists of something more than half a page of conditions upon the happening of either or any of which, it is stipulated that “ then, in every such case, this policy shall be void.”
Prominent among these interpolated conditions of defeasance are placed cases of “ false representation by the assured of the condition, situation, or occupancy of the property,” of “ omission to make known every fact material to the risk,”- of “ over-valuation or any misrepresentation whatever, either in a…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Penn Mut. Life Ins. v. Mechanics' Savings Bank & Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1896
- Dillard v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1880
- Hicks v. DavisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Moore v. Phœnix InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1882