Briggs v. Fireman's Fund Insurance
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Oakland. (Stickney, J.) Argued Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts •are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtOhamplin, J.
This is an action on a fire insurance policy. *54The defense is that of overvaluation. In her application for insurance plaintiff stated the value of the dwelling house to be $1,800, and the defendant insured it for $1,400. The application also contained this clause:
“And the said applicant hereby covenants and agrees to- and with the Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company that the foregoing is a just, full, and true exposition of all facts and circumstances in regard to the condition, situation, value, and risk of the property to be insured; and said answers are considered the basis on which insurance…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Stone v. Hawkeye Ins.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1886
- Schmidt v. Mutual City & Village Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by9 opinions
- Meyer v. National Fire InsuranceNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1936
- Wilms v. New Hampshire Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
- Shelden v. Michigan Millers' Mutual Fire-Insurance Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1900
- Stitt v. Locomotive Engineers' Mutual Protective Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
- Elliott v. Merchants & Bankers Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.