Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Rochester German Insurance v. Monumental Sayings Ass'n

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided January 16, 1908PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Norfolk county in an action of assumpsit. Judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant assigns error.

1Opinion of the CourtBuchanan, J.

This is an action of assumpsit upon a fire insurance policy. The policy contains the following clauses:

“The entire policy, unless otherwise provided by agreement endorsed hereon or added hereto, shall be void if the interest of the insured be other than unconditional and sole ownership.”
“This entire policy, unless otherwise provided by agreement endorsed hereon or added hereto, shall be void if any change other than by death of an insured takes place in the interest;, title or possession of the subject of the insurance (except change of occupants without increase of hazard), whether by legal…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Phenix Ins. v. KerrCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
  2. Mokotock Insurance v. Rodefer Bros.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1896
  3. United States Mineral Co. v. Camden & DriscollSupreme Court of Virginia · 1907
  4. Manhattan Fire Ins. v. Weill & UllmanSupreme Court of Virginia · 1877
  5. Westchester Fire Insurance v. Ocean View Pleasure Pier Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1907

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Houseman v. Home InsuranceWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Aetna Insurance v. AstonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1918
  3. Virginia Fire & Marine Insurance v. LennonCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1924
  4. Farmers Mutual Fire Insurance v. OlsonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1920
  5. Campbell v. Home InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1937

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API