Legal Opinion

Ross v. Insurance Co. Of North America

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided January 4, 1952No. 72, Docket 22133PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

Defendant argues that the recovery is barred by the non-disclosures (1) that the insured had earlier been convicted and (2) that she was about to be tried for prostitution. We think not. According to Stecker v. American Home Fire Assur. Co., 299 N.Y. 1, 84 N.E.2d 797, this kind of policy, although called an “inland marine policy,” is governed by the ordinary insurance rule concerning disclosure of matters material to the risk. Under this rule, absent an inquiry by the insurer, the insured had no duty to make such disclosures. We think no fraud was proved. As the trial…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Stecker v. American Home Fire Assurance Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1949

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Rosenfeld v. Union Insurance Society of Canton, Ltd.District Court, E.D. New York · 1957
  2. Alko Jewelry Mfg. Corp. v. Lloyd's of LondonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API