Legal Opinion
Peerless Hosiery Co. v. Northern Ins. Co.
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided May 9, 1952No. Civ. A. 3392PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HINCKS, District Judge.
The defendants have suggested four different grounds on which they contend they should be granted a judgment.
1. They contend that the plaintiff’s failure to give written notice of loss or to file proofs of loss clearly is *a bar to the action. ■ This defense is overruled. It is true that the policies were intended to make the giving of such notice and the filing of proofs a condition precedent to recovery. Fields v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 1946, 132 Conn. 588, 46 A.2d 127. However, such a requirement may be waived. The defendants’ agent, Moakley, testified that he…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Insurance Co. v. BoonSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Mahoney v. BeatmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
- Bernhard v. Rochester German InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1906
- Benanti v. Delaware InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1912
- Hanley Co., Inc. v. American Cement Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Lamb v. Emhart Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- Danielson v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1959
- Fromson v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1994
- La-Z-Boy Chair Co. v. HindsDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1973
- Lamb v. Emhart CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.