Legal Opinion
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Nance
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided April 9, 1926No. 4513PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MOORMAN, Circuit Judge.
This is an action on a fire insurance policy issued to Thomas and Lucy Nance. There was a recovery in the court below. Defendant relied, among other defenses, upon the breach of a stipulation of unconditional and sole ownership of the property. This was based on a *576provision in the policy, vitiating it “if the interest of the insured be other than unconditional and sole ownership, or if the subject of the insurance be a building on ground not owned by the insured in fee simple.” The policy also provided that none of its terms or conditions could be waived, except in…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Liverpool & Great Western Steam Co. v. Phenix InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Insurance Co. v. WilkinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Pritchard v. NortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Northern Assurance Co. v. Grand View Building Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Imperial Fire Insurance v. Coos CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Gulf Refining Co. v. Home Indemnity Co. of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1935
- Norwich Union Indemnity Co. v. H. Kobacker & Sons Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1929
- Home Ins. Co. of New York v. ScottCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1930
- Continental Ins. v. Fire Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1945
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. JonesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1926
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.