Legal Opinion

Currier v. North British &c. Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided November 30, 1953No. 4251PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKenison, C. J.

The rights of persons having limited, fractional or joint interests in property, who are not named in the fire insurance policy, to recover their proportionate interests in the event of loss are uncertain, unsettled and unsatisfactory. Dudley v. Company, 82 N. H. 167; 48 Col. L. Rev. 1162, 1173, 1186. A typical situation, as it existed in 1937, has been described by Goble, The Moral Hazard Clauses of the Standard Fire Insurance Policy. 37 Col. L. Rev. 410, 417, as follows: “When a married man buys property, especially a home, a joint tenancy or a tenancy by the entireties frequently appeals…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. SPIRES Et Ux. v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
  2. Salomon v. North British & Mercantile InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
  3. North British & Mercantile Ins. Co. v. SciandraSupreme Court of Alabama · 1951
  4. Ritson v. Atlas Assurance Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
  5. Ritson v. Atlas Assurance Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Russell v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Sullivan v. Estate of EasonMississippi Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Johnson v. Phenix Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1982
  4. Robert B. Noble v. Ralph W. FarrisCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1955
  5. Carle's Motorcycle Shop, Inc. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1973

2 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