Bennett v. Agricultural Insurance
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Action on a policy of fire insurance; brought to thé Superior Court in, Windham County, and tried to the jury before Stoddard, J. Verdict for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendants for error in the rulings and charge of the court. The points decided will be sufficiently understood without a statement .of the facts. The same case was before this court at a former term, (50 Conn., 420,) and the facts are fully stated in the report then given.
1Opinion of the CourtLoomis, J.
When this case was before this court at its January term, 1888, it was a prominent contention whether certain statements made by the plaintiff in his application for insurance were warranties or representations. 50 Conn., 420.
The Superior Court held that they were warranties provided they related to the risk, but in submitting to the jury as the two controlling points, that the statements must be found intentionally false and must also relate to the risk, overlooked the usual distinction made between warranties and representations, which is that the former are to be literally and exactly…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bennett v. Agricultural InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1883
- Donahue v. ColemanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1882
3Cited by15 opinions
- Three S. Development Co. v. SantoreSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- Nikitiuk v. PishteySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1966
- Cook v. MorrisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1895
- Bradbury v. City of South NorwalkSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1907
- McVeigh v. RipleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1904
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.