Legal Opinion

Lamb v. United States Fire Insurance

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 1, 1936PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarble, J.

It is conceded that the fire was purposely set. Pools of kerosene and kerosene-soaked newspapers were found in those portions of the house which did not burn. Although the duty of adducing some proof that the plaintiff was responsible for the fire devolved upon the defendant, no logical reason appears for holding inapplicable the usual rule which places “upon a plaintiff the general risk of non-persuasion.” “She [the plaintiff] was uninsured for a fire set by her own procuring,” and “Her right of recovery depended upon proof that her loss was insured.” Trepanier v. Insurance Co., ante, 118.

At…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Kruzel v. UNUM LifeDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 1998
  2. Manter v. Boston Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1943
  3. Manter v. Boston Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1943

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

Powered by the Exa API