Hartford Fire Ins. v. Smith
Supreme Court of Colorado
Error to Probate Court of Arapahoe County. This was an action of assumpsit brought by Smith and another, the defendants in error, against the plaintiff in error, upon a policy of insurance against loss by fire. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs below, and judgment was entered on the verdict. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtThatcher, C. J.
By the terms of the policy the assured were required, in case of loss, to give immediate notice thereof to the company. On the day after the fire, Kassler & Patterson, local agents of the company, whose duty it was, in the event of loss, to notify their principal, wrote a letter to Gf. F. Bissell, general agent of the company at Chicago, apprising him of the loss. On the same day, and after the letter was written, the assured notified Kassler & Patterson of the loss, and were informed by them that it was already known to them, and that they had signified the same by letter to the company. Was…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hough v. City Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1860
- Killips v. Putnam Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
- Saint Louis Insurance v. KyleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1848
- Vos v. RobinsonNew York Supreme Court · 1812
- Keenan v. Missouri State Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1861
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Supreme Lodge, Knights of Honor v. DavisSupreme Court of Colorado · 1899
- Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co. v. Pennsylvania Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1916
- Indiana Life Endowment Co. v. ReedIndiana Supreme Court · 1913
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Kansas Bankers Surety Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2016
- National Mutual Fire Insurance v. SpragueSupreme Court of Colorado · 1907
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.