McCord v. Masonic Casualty Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on an accident certificate insuring against disability caused by certain specified accidents. Writ in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston dated April 16, 1906. On appeal to the Superior Court the case was tried before Lawton, J. At the trial the following facts appeared: One of the conditions on which the defendant agreed to pay the sums specified in the certificate was stated in these words: “ Unless notice of said disability shall be given in writing to the…
Read the full summary
Contract on an accident certificate insuring against disability caused by certain specified accidents. Writ in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston dated April 16, 1906. On appeal to the Superior Court the case was tried before Lawton, J. At the trial the following facts appeared: One of the conditions on which the defendant agreed to pay the sums specified in the certificate was stated in these words: “ Unless notice of said disability shall be given in writing to the Home office of the company at Boston, Mass., within two weeks of the commencement of the disability or death, together…
1Opinion of the CourtLoring, J.
1. The purpose of the clause requiring notice to be given to the company at its home office in Boston, within two weeks of the commencement of the disability, is manifest. It was to enable the company at the proper time to make the necessary investigations to determine the merits of the claim, and if in its judgment it was not a meritorious one, to prepare for its defense. Having this purpose in mind, there can be no doubt of the true construction of the clause. The clause means that notice shall be received by the company at Boston within the two weeks. Notice to a person, particularly…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Crown Point Iron Co. v. Ætna InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Hohn v. Inter-State Casualty Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Burlington Insurance v. LowerySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
- Shea v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1899
- McCarthy v. Inhabitants of DedhamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Phoenix Cotton Oil Co. v. Royal Indemnity Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1918
- Sweeney v. Morey & Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- Sheehan v. Commercial Travelers Mutual Accident Ass'n of AmericaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- Ford v. RogovinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Costello v. Board of Appeals of LexingtonMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1975
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.