Legal Opinion

Briggs v. Fireman's Fund Insurance

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 10, 1887PublishedCited by 9 opinions

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

  1. Stone v. Hawkeye Ins.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1886
  2. Schmidt v. Mutual City & Village Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1885

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Meyer v. National Fire InsuranceNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1936
  2. Wilms v. New Hampshire Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
  3. Shelden v. Michigan Millers' Mutual Fire-Insurance Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Stitt v. Locomotive Engineers' Mutual Protective Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
  5. Elliott v. Merchants & Bankers Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899

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

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

Powered by the Exa API