Legal Opinion

Himelfarb v. Hartford Fire Insurance

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided October 5, 1998No. 61, Sept. Term, 1998PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EYLER, Judge.

The issue in this case is whether Herbert and Frances Himelfarb (“Himelfarbs”), appellants, complied with a proof of loss provision in an insurance policy issued by The Hartford Fire Insurance Company (“Hartford”), appellee. On appeal, the Himelfarbs challenge an order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City granting Hartford’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that the Himelfarbs had not submitted a complete proof of loss to Hartford within sixty days of Hartford’s request for information, as required by the policy. We hold that the Himelfarbs succeeded in creating a…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Beatty v. Trailmaster Products, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1993
  2. McNally v. Phœnix InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
  3. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. LaneCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1995
  4. Hartford Fire Insurance v. ReddingSupreme Court of Florida · 1904
  5. Carpenter v. German American InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1892

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Crews v. HollenbachCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1999
  2. Hartford Fire Insurance v. HimelfarbCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API