Legal Opinion
Brumel v. Hartford Fire Insurance
City of New York Municipal Court
Decided January 16, 1936PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtNoonan, J.
The complaint is attacked by motion on two grounds; one for insufficiency in law and the other for failure to commence the action within the contractual period of limitation.
The action is on an oral contract of fire insurance. . The complaint alleges that the plaintiff resided and conducted a stationery store business in the premises 2212 Surf avenue, borough of Brooklyn, city of New York, and was desirous of procuring insurance against fire on his fixtures and stock of merchandise, consisting of candy, stationery and cigars, as well as on his household furniture. For that purpose he…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Hamilton v. Royal Insurance Co. of Liverpool, EnglandNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
- Ell Dee Clothing Co. v. MarshNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Hicks v. British America Assurance Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Allen v. Dutchess County Mutual InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
- Truglio v. Zurich General Accident & Liability InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Bersani v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Bersani v. GEN. ACC. FIRE CORP.New York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Owen v. ShoresCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1975
- Baker v. Latham Sparrowbush AssociatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1992
- Friedman v. Long Island Rail RoadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1947
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.