Lancy v. Home Insurance
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On REPORT. It was admitted that defendants are a foreign fire insurance company, and were legally admitted before March 26, 1875, as required by law, to transact insurance business in the state of Maine, and have been so legally admitted annually since. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion. Non-occupancy does not avoid the policy unless risk is materially increased. Testimony of insurance men that risk is generally increased by non-occupancy is not admissible.
Read the full summary
On REPORT. It was admitted that defendants are a foreign fire insurance company, and were legally admitted before March 26, 1875, as required by law, to transact insurance business in the state of Maine, and have been so legally admitted annually since. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion. Non-occupancy does not avoid the policy unless risk is materially increased. Testimony of insurance men that risk is generally increased by non-occupancy is not admissible. Joyce v. Ins. Go., 45 Maine, 168; Gannett v. Ins. Go., 59 Maine, 582; State v. Watson, 65 Maine, 74. The defendants’ right…
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, C. J.
The question of recovery for a loss by fire under this policy is referred to the court, as a question of law and fact. The defenses set up are the statute of limitations, a want of proof of loss, and increased risk occasioned by non-occupancy. The title is also questioned. It is doubtful if any proof of loss was ever sent to the company, or to any of its agents. We need not consider any of the questions, however, excepting that of non-occupancy, which will be decisive of the case.
It is agreed in the policy that, “should the premises become vacant or unoccupied without notice to, and consent…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Givanovitch v. Hebrew CongregationSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1884
- Miller-Goll Manufacturing Co. v. Metropolitan Building Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1915
- Pratt v. Damon Castle Hall Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1918
- Weinberg Realty Co. v. Harford Mutual InsuranceCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1980