Legal Opinion

Trepanier v. Mercantile Ins. Co. of America

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided May 5, 1936PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAllen, C. J.

The policies are construed to exclude vacancy as an increase of risk within the application of the clause relative to an increase. The clause relating to vacancy is specific in respect to the period required for it to be effective as an avoidance of the policy. If the period has run, the insurance is suspended. No inquiry whether the risk has been thereby increased needs to be made. If the period has not run, the only reasonable view is that the insurance is not affected. In other words, the policy treats vacancy independently of risk. If the vacancy does not exceed the period, the policy…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Caswell v. Maplewood GarageSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1930
  2. State v. LapointeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1924
  3. Spilene v. Salmon Falls Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1920
  4. Stone v. Granite State Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1898
  5. Gaffney v. CoffeySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1924

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Roosevelt Savings Bank of City of New York v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1976
  2. Kruzel v. UNUM LifeDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API