Legal Opinion

Hogl v. Aachen Insurance Co.

West Virginia Supreme Court

Decided March 30, 1909PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Error to Circuit Court, Ohio County. Action by Matilda C. Hogl against the Aachen & Munich Fire Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the Court

Brannon, Judge:

Matilda C. Hogl sued the Aachen & Munich Eire Insurance Company to recover for loss of her house by fire, and recovered.

The insurance policy provides that no suit on it shall be sustained “unless commenced within twelve months next after the fire.” This suit was not begun within that period; but the policy contains another clause saying that the loss should not become payable until sixty days after proof of loss furnished. The only question is, shall the twelve months limitation begin from the-fire or from the close of the sixty days? The policy forbids suit for sixty days. Is…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Insurance Cos. v. ScalesTennessee Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Sun Insurance v. JonesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Kendall v. Travelers' Protective Ass'nOregon Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Kirk v. Firemen's Insurance Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Meadows v. EMPLOYERS'FIRE INS. CO.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Prete v. Royal Globe InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. West Virginia · 1982
  5. Messler v. Williamsburg City F. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1920

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API