Legal Opinion
McCormick v. Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
California Supreme Court
Decided January 19, 1885No. 9,417PublishedCited by 13 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. " The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKinstry, J.
The policy of insurance on which this action was brought contains the covenants:
“ If the assured is not the sole, absolute, and unconditional owner of the property insured, * * * and the interest of the assured be not truly stated in the policy, * * * then and in every such case the policy shall be void.
“ If an application * * * is referred to in this policy * * * such application * * shall be considered a part of this policy and a warranty by the assured; and if the assured, in a written or verbal application, makes any erroneous misrepresentation, * * * then and in every such case this…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Rohrbach v. . Germania Fire Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Mers v. Franklin InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Security Insurance v. FayMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
- Southwick v. Atlantic Fire & Marine InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
3Cited by13 opinions
- Syndicate Ins. v. BohnCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1894
- Goorberg v. the Western Assurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Kohl v. LilienthalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- McCormick v. Orient InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Watson v. BonfilsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1902
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.