Legal Opinion
Miller v. Continental Insurance
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided June 23, 1922No. 22,901PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDibell, J.
Action to recover upon a policy of fire insurance. It is conceded that the defendant is liable in the sum of $1,000 unless the policy was canceled by mutual consent. There was a verdict for the defendant which necessarily includes a finding of cancelation. The plaintiff appeals from the order denying his alternative motion for judgment or a new trial.
The policy was issued on October 27, 1920. One Fineberg was the broker. The agents representing the insurance company wrote Fine-berg about November 27, stating that a cancelation was desired. Fineberg then went to Miller’s place of business.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Artificial Ice Co. v. Reciprocal ExchangeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1921
- Wicks Bros. v. Scottish Union & National InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1900
- Rosen v. German Alliance InsuranceSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1909
- Bradshaw Bros. & Co. v. Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
- Bemidji Iron Works Co. v. Agricultural InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Merchants & Farmers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Saint Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1943
- Miller v. Continental Insurance Co. of New YorkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924