Legal Opinion
Maimes v. Automobile Insurance
New York Supreme Court
Decided July 15, 1920PublishedCited by 2 opinions
Motion for a new trial on the judge’s minutes.
1Opinion of the CourtRodenbeck, J.
The defendant insurance company was not required to accede to the request of the plaintiff for an appraisal under the clause in the standard fire insurance policy included between lines 159 and 175. *657Upon the failure of the company to select an appraiser upon the request of the insured, he is permitted to commence an action under the policy. This clause in the contract is a collateral agreement to the main agreement (Mark v. National Fire Ins. Co., 24 Hun, 565; Gibbs v. Continental Ins. Co., 13 id. 611) which is one to pay the actual cash value of the property lost or damaged. The clause…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hamilton v. Liverpool, London & Globe InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Matter of CaseNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Uhrig v. . Williamsburgh City Fire Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Bishop v. Agricultural InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Benoit v. . Troy Lansingburgh R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1897
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kawa v. Nationwide Mutual Fire InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1997
- In re the Arbitration between Fitzgerald & Continental InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1949