Legal Opinion

Heath v. Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance

Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

Decided October 4, 1968No. 56596PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtMurphy, J.

This is an action of contract to recover under the ‘mysterious disappearance clause’ of an extended theft rider to a Homeowners Insurance Policy for the loss of an antique circular pin.

The plaintiff’s declaration states that:

“The plaintiff purchased and received from the defendant an insurance policy and under an extended theft coverage rider to said policy, for which she paid an additional premium, the definition of theft was amended to mean “any act of stealing or attempt thereat, or mysterious disappearance (except mysterious disappearance of a precious or semi-precious stone from its…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Moss v. Old Colony Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
  2. Berry v. KyesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
  3. Davis v. St. Paul Mercury & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  4. Loop v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Ins. Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1953
  5. Austin v. American Casualty CompanyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1963

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. J. Dirats & Co. v. National Cash Register Co.Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1975

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API