Conner v. Manchester Assur. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. On June 9, 1902, the defendant in error, in consideration of a premium paid it by the plaintiffs in error, executed and delivered to them a certificate of insurance, certifying that in consideration of the payment of said premium, it insured them against loss or damage by fire to the amount of $3,300 on their interest in a certain grain crop situated on certain described premises.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. On June 9, 1902, the defendant in error, in consideration of a premium paid it by the plaintiffs in error, executed and delivered to them a certificate of insurance, certifying that in consideration of the payment of said premium, it insured them against loss or damage by fire to the amount of $3,300 on their interest in a certain grain crop situated on certain described premises. The certificate proceeded to recite that it .was understood and agreed that the insurance “is subject to all the terms and…
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
It is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs in error that they are not bound by the terms and conditions expressed in the “open policy” referred to in the certificate of insurance, for the reason that they never assented thereto, and that said provisions were not contained in the instrument which they received from the insurance company. They rely upon the following sections of the Civil Code of California:
“Sec. 2605. Every express warranty, made at or before the execution of a policy, must be contained in the policy itself, or in another instrument signed by the insured, and referred to in…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Insurance Co. v. BoonSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Grand Trunk Railroad v. RichardsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Eastern Railroad v. Relief Firf InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Krippner v. BieblSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Barton v. Home InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1868
3Cited by19 opinions
- Ray v. EuriceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1952
- Employers Mutual Casualty Co. of Des Moines, Iowa v. NelsonTexas Supreme Court · 1962
- Madsen v. Maryland Cas. Co. of BaltimoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Whittlesey v. Herbrand Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1922
- Bankers Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. BukacekSupreme Court of Alabama · 1960
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.