Komroff v. Maryland Casualty Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.
The contract of insurance consisted of (1) a so-called “general policy” containing agreements and conditions. appropriate and applicable to losses, whether by burglary, theft or larceny, and (2) a “rider” entitled “standard safe burglary rider” specifically describing the loss insured against and setting forth a further “special agreement” having reference and appropriate to insurance against safe burglaries. It was admitted in the argument that the general policy is used for all burglary risks but that there are several forms of rider specifying and limiting the losses covered and the manner…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Rosenthal v. American Bonding Co. of BaltimoreNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
- First National Bank v. Maryland Casualty Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
- Dresser v. Hartford Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1908
- T. J. Bruner Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1917
- Blank v. National Surety Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1917
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Heyman Associates No. 1 v. Insurance Co. of PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Raffel v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
- Weingarten v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1975
- Miller Bros. Construction Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1931
- Town of Plainville v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.