Kansas City College of Osteopathic Medicine v. Employers' Surplus Lines Insurance Company
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
PETTINE, Chief District Judge.
This case poses the question of whether a contract of insurance, bargained between equals and supported by consideration, can be binding, although the procurer of insurance intentionally prevents the risk from attaching. We answer, on the facts of this case, in the affirmative.
In this diversity action, Kansas City College of Osteopathic Medicine (KCCOM) seeks return of a $200,000 insurance premium from Employers’ Surplus Lines Insurance Company (ESLIC), a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Boston. KCCOM argued to the court below that…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Fortune v. National Cash Register Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
- Clark v. President of the Manufacturers' InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- Mutual Assurance Society v. WattsSupreme Court of the United States · 1816
- Jones v. Insurance Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1891
- Schuerman v. General American Life InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1937
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Autumn Ridge v. Acordia of Virginia Ins.Supreme Court of Virginia · 2005
- Donna Haas v. Travelex Insurance Services Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2021
- Redlich v. LanellMassachusetts Superior Court · 2006
- Seibel v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PADistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2023