Zamboni v. Implement Dealers Mutual Fire Insurance
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.
Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment entered in their favor for $350 upon defendant’s motion, after a verdict for $587.50. Plaintiffs moved for a new trial because of the inadequacy of the verdict. The motion was denied, while defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante was granted.
The action is upon a policy issued by defendant insuring plaintiffs against loss or damage by fire of a filling station in Owatonna, but “not to include loss or damage caused by explosions of any kind and unless fire ensues, and then to include that caused by fire only.” It is conceded that |350 covers the loss and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Mitchell v. Potomac InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- German American Insurance v. HymanSupreme Court of Colorado · 1908
- Western Assur. Co. of Toronto v. J. H. Mohlman Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1897
- Wheeler v. . Phenix Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1911
- Hall v. National Fire InsuranceTennessee Supreme Court · 1905
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. MorrisonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1945
- LL Freeberg Pie Co. v. St. Paul Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Cole v. United States Fire Ins. Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1933
- Sargent v. Mechanics InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1933
- Rieke v. St. Albans Land Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1930