Kingsley v. New England Mutual Fire Insurance
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was assumpsit on a policy of insurance. The declaration contained two counts, the first of which set forth the interest of the plaintiffs in the premises insured at the time of the insurance and of the fire, the making of the policy by the defendants, whereby they promised the plaintiffs, within three months after a loss by fire and notice thereof in writing, to ascertain and determine the amount of the loss and pay the same to the plaintiffs; a loss by fire within the…
Read the full summary
This was assumpsit on a policy of insurance. The declaration contained two counts, the first of which set forth the interest of the plaintiffs in the premises insured at the time of the insurance and of the fire, the making of the policy by the defendants, whereby they promised the plaintiffs, within three months after a loss by fire and notice thereof in writing, to ascertain and determine the amount of the loss and pay the same to the plaintiffs; a loss by fire within the time limited in the policy; notice to the defendants; and their refusal to pay the same. The second count was as…
1Opinion of the CourtMetcalf, J.
The first point taken by the defendants in argument is, that the action cannot be maintained in the name of the plaintiffs, and that it should have been brought in the name of Cudworth. But we are of opinion, that the assignments of the policy, with the express consent of the defendants, enable the assignees to sue on it in their own names; that such consent to the assignments operates as a promise to pay the loss to them. See Crocker v. Whitney, 10 Mass. 316; Wilson v. Hill, 3 Met. 69. If, as the defendants admit, the plaintiffs’ assignment to Cudworth authorized him to sue in his name, we…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Crocker v. WhitneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Lounsbury v. Protection Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1831
- Phillips v. TuckerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1860