Washington Fire & Marine Ins. v. Chesebro
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut
At Law. Action by the Washington Fire and Marine Insurance Company against Charles 15. Chesebro, its agent, for negligence and disobedience of orders, whereby the plaintiff had been compelled to pay a loss. It appeared that plaintiff had ordered the insurance canceled, the policy still being in defendant’s hands, as soon as they were informed of its having been effected, saying: “ Please at once relievo us of the risk.
Read the full summary
At Law. Action by the Washington Fire and Marine Insurance Company against Charles 15. Chesebro, its agent, for negligence and disobedience of orders, whereby the plaintiff had been compelled to pay a loss. It appeared that plaintiff had ordered the insurance canceled, the policy still being in defendant’s hands, as soon as they were informed of its having been effected, saying: “ Please at once relievo us of the risk. The property in itself, and the exposure to the same, would make it prohibited with us. Let us have the policy, please, by return mail.” The defendant, thinking the company…
1Opinion of the Court
Shipman, J.,
(charging jury.) 1. It being admitted that the defendant was agent for the plaintiff, it was the duty of the defendant, upon receipt of the notice, dated July 31, 1885, peremptorily ordering him to cancel the risk, to proceed to do so with all reasonable diligence.
2. It being admitted that the office of the agent was within five minutes’ walk of the office and place of business of E. T. Whitmore & Co., the insured, the agent’s neglect to cancel said policy for a period of more than six days after the receipt of said peremptory order was such a neglect of duty as would render the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Phoenix Ins. Co. v. HeathUtah Supreme Court · 1936
- Washington v. Mechanics Traders Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. BiggerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1917