Legal Opinion

Pomerantz v. Mutual Fire Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 25, 1924No. Appeal, No. 66PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Kephart,

Following the standard form of policy required by the Act of May 17, 1921, P. L. 682, 737, the provision as to cancellation was as follows: “This policy may be cancelled at any time by the company, by giving to the insured a five days’ written notice of cancellation, with or without tender of the excess of paid premium above *499the pro rata premium for the expired time, which excess, if not tendered, shall be refunded on demand. Notice of cancellation shall state that said excess premium (if not tendered) will be refunded on demand.” The law requires, where a policy…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Scheel v. German-American InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
  2. Gosch v. Firemen's InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
  3. Baldwin v. Pennsylvania Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Medford v. Pacific National Fire InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1950
  2. Fidelity Casualty Co. of New York v. JacksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1936
  3. Frontier-Pontiac, Inc. v. Dubuque Fire & Marine Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1942
  4. Scott v. Southwestern Mutual Fire Ass'nSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  5. Campbell v. Royal Indem. Co. of NYSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978

19 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