Webber v. Fidelity Lloyds of America
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
WILLSON, O. J.
(after stating the facts as above). The j udgment involves findings by the trial court that appellee did not waive the violation by appellant of the stipulation set out in the statement above in either of the ways charged against it. We agree that the finding that appellant was not entitled to predicate waiver he asserted on the “proof of loss” he made was correct, for itvwas not shown that such proof was made in compliance with a demand therefor by appellee (14 R. C. L. 1197; Woodard v. Ins. Co., 128 Wis. 1, 106 N. W. 681, 116 Am. St. Rep. 17; Ridgeway v. Modern Woodmen, 98…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Austin Fire Ins. Co. v. PolemanakosTexas Commission of Appeals · 1919
- Ætna Accident & Liability Co. v. WhiteCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
- International Indemnity Co. v. DuncanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1923
- Gardner v. Continental Ins.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1907
- Ridgeway v. Modern Woodmen of AmericaSupreme Court of Kansas · 1916
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- National Aid Life Ass'n v. MurphyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1934
- Fidelity Lloyds of America v. GeddieTexas Supreme Court · 1927
- Wyche v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1946
- Howrey v. Star Insurance Co. of AmericaWyoming Supreme Court · 1934
- Craddock v. Washington Nat. Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1935