Legal Opinion

Pinet v. New Hampshire Fire Insurance Company

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided October 31, 1956No. 4516PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKenison, C. J.

Although the plaintiff suffered a total loss of his chinchillas, he cannot invoke the valued policy statute since by its terms it applies only to “buildings” (RSA 407:8; Lamb v. Insurance Company, 88 N. H. 21) and as to personal property the insured is obligated to establish the amount of his loss. Moreau v. Insurance Company, 84 N. H. 422. In determining the amount of the loss, the first question to be decided is whether the valuation condition 4 of the policy controls as contended by the defendant or whether it is inapplicable to chinchillas as contended by the plaintiff. No case…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. McAnarney v. Newark Fire InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
  2. Kingsley v. SpoffordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
  3. Citizens' Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Fitchburg Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1912
  4. Voges v. Mechanics InsuranceNebraska Supreme Court · 1930

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Crisp v. Security National Insurance CompanyTexas Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Elberon Bathing Co., Inc. v. Ambassador Insurance Co., Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1978
  3. Berkshire Mutual Insurance Company v. Richard G. Moffett, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1967
  4. Richfield Oil Corp. v. Harbor Insurance Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Wisconsin Screw Company v. Fireman's Fund Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1962

15 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