Legal Opinion

Depew v. Hanover Insurance

District Court, E.D. Tennessee

Decided May 28, 1976No. Nos. CIV-2-75-131 to CIV-2-75-133PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

NEESE, District Judge.

The defendant The Hanover Insurance Company moved for a summary judgment, Rule 56(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, contending that the plaintiffs were required to furnish notice and a proof of loss, as required by the insurance contract of such parties, as a condition precedent to any recovery against it herein. The motion lacks merit.

Notice and proof of loss are conditions precedent to any recovery on an insurance contract requiring the furnishing of the same. Fisher v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company (Tenn., 1973), 503 S.W.2d 191,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Fisher v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Insurance Co. of North America v. BankerCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1929
  3. Sexton v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1928

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Pinzer v. WoodDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1979

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API