Legal Opinion
Ursini v. Goldman
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided June 12, 1934PublishedCited by 66 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHustman, J.
The plaintiff alleged in general terms in his complaint, and on the trial offered evidence to prove, the following facts: In 1928 he leased a store in a building in New Haven, owned by the defendant, for the purpose of selling groceries at wholesale. The defendant was' engaged in the insurance and real-estate business and was a licensed insurance broker. Prior to August, 1928, the defendant repeatedly solicited the plaintiff to insure against burglary, but the plaintiff did not do so. In August the plaintiff’s store was entered by burglars and he sustained substantial loss. The day following…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Bostwick v. Mutual Life Insurance Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- MacKay v. Aetna Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1934
- Elam v. Smithdeal Realty & InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
- Floars v. Ætna Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
- Elam v. . Realty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by66 opinions
- TIE Communications, Inc. v. KoppSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Stuart v. National Indemnity Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1982
- D'ANTUONO v. Service Road Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2011
- Kap-Pel Fabrics, Inc. v. R. B. Jones & Sons, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1966
- Todd v. MalafronteConnecticut Appellate Court · 1984
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.