Legal Opinion
Gill v. Fidelity Phenix Fire Ins.
District Court, E.D. Kentucky
Decided September 8, 1933No. 1157PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ANDREW M. J. COCHRAN, District Judge.
This action is before me on plaintiffs’ motion for new trial. The ground of it is that I erred in instructing the jury that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover $2,000 only on the policy sued on. It contained a provision in these words: “The Company reserves the right to cancel this policy or any part thereof on giving notice to that effect and refunding a ratable proportion of the premium for the unexpired term of the policy, and the assured may cancel when the premium or note or other obligation given for such premium has been actually paid in cash in…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Imperial Fire Insurance v. Coos CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Lumber Underwriters of NY v. RifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Lipman v. Niagara Fire InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Karelsen v. Sun Fire Office of London (Ltd.)New York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Chadbourne v. German-American Ins.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1887
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Magness Construction Co. v. Ohio Farmers InsuranceSuperior Court of Delaware · 1969
- Metropolitan Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. FarmerDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2019