Wierengo v. American Fire Insurance
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Muskegon. (Dickerman, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. Reversed. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
Plaintiff is the assignee of a policy of insurance upon a stock of merchandise issued to Mary E. Pearson, and brought suit thereon for loss by fire. Charles A. Pearson, the husband of Mary, was her general agent, conducted her business, and applied for and obtained the policy of insurance sued upon. The application was verbal. No terms of the contract for insurance were ever mentioned between Mr. Pearson and the defendant’s local agent, Mr. White, except the amount, which was fixed at $1,000. Mr. White kept blank policies of the defendant, which he was authorized to fill up and deliver,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- O'Brien v. Ohio InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Hillyer v. DickinsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
- Druse v. WheelerMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
3Cited by35 opinions
- Rory v. Continental InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 2005
- Parsons, Rich & Co. v. LaneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Capps v. National Union Fire InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1925
- Madsen v. Maryland Cas. Co. of BaltimoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Haley v. Sharon Township Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.