Security Insurance v. Bronger
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 40 — PETITION OBDINABY — CITED Session Acts, 1865-6, p. 378. 1 Met. 523, Eminence Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jesse. 1 Ins., 5th edition, 475, subsection 874. 1 Amould on Insurance, 579. 2 Phillips on Insurance, 5th edition, 653, subsec. 2122. Civil Code, sec. 161, and note a, Myers’s Code. 8 B. Mon. 637-9, Ky. and L. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Southard. 1 Phillips on Insurance, 5th edition, pp. 47, 48, subsec. 70. CITED 2 Am. L. O. 460, Locke v. North Am. Ins.
Read the full summary
Case 40 — PETITION OBDINABY — CITED Session Acts, 1865-6, p. 378. 1 Met. 523, Eminence Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jesse. 1 Ins., 5th edition, 475, subsection 874. 1 Amould on Insurance, 579. 2 Phillips on Insurance, 5th edition, 653, subsec. 2122. Civil Code, sec. 161, and note a, Myers’s Code. 8 B. Mon. 637-9, Ky. and L. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Southard. 1 Phillips on Insurance, 5th edition, pp. 47, 48, subsec. 70. CITED 2 Am. L. O. 460, Locke v. North Am. Ins. Co. 10 Pick. 44, Strong v. Manufacturers Ins. Co. 18 Pick. 420, Eletclier v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. 2 B. Mon. 50, Franklin Ins. Co. v. Drake.
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE ROBERTSON
delivered the opinion on the court.
The fire policy on which this action was brought by the appellee against the appellant insured houses and other things in Louisville, and the houses were burned.
The policy provided: first, that the written application should be considered a part of it, and its statements be deemed wairranties; second, that a lien was reserved for securing the payment of the premium; third, that unless the interest of the assured was “ truly stated” the policy should be void; fourth, that if his interest “be any 'other than the entire, unconditional, and sole…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Davis v. Henry Clay Fire Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1926