Mayor of New York v. Hamilton Fire Insurance
New York Court of Appeals
This was an action to recover npon a policy of insurance. The most of the questions involved have been decided by this Court in the suits against the Excelsior and the Corn Exchange Companies. The only distinguishing point arises upon the tenth section of the conditions of the policy.
Read the full summary
This was an action to recover npon a policy of insurance. The most of the questions involved have been decided by this Court in the suits against the Excelsior and the Corn Exchange Companies. The only distinguishing point arises upon the tenth section of the conditions of the policy. That section is in these words: “ X. In case of any loss or damage to the property insured, it shall be optional with the company to replace the articles lost, . . . and to rebuild or to repair the building or buildings within a reasonable time, giving notice of their intention so to do within thirty days after…
1Opinion of the Court
Hunt, Ch. J.
The defence in this case is based upon a noncompliance with the contract of limitations created by the tenth condition of the policy. In Roach v. The N. Y. & Erie Ins. Co. (30 N. Y. R. 546), the condition in question was held to be valid. "We are bound to hold in the same manner in the present case. In Ames v. N. Y. Union Ins. Co. (14 N. Y. R. 253), it was held that this condition might be waived by the acts and declarations of the parties, and that it had been waived by the parties in that case. The condition is extremely stringent.
It is in derogation of the rights of the…
2Cited by43 opinions
- Thompson v. Phenix InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- McNally v. Phœnix InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
- Insurance Cos. v. ScalesTennessee Supreme Court · 1899
- Chandler v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1874
- Ellis v. Council Bluffs InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1884
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.