Steil v. Sun Insurance Office
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Peter F. Dunne, C. W. Durbrow, and C. H. Wilson, for Appellant. T. C. Van Ness, and T. C. Van Ness, Jr., for Respondent Sun Insurance Office of London. Chickering & Gregory, and W. S. Dorn, for Other Respondents.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
Henry Steil had three policies of insurance covering goods situated in- the Chronicle building, in San Francisco, one issued by Sun Insurance Office of London, one by London Assurance Corporation, and the third by Northern Assurance Company. In January, 1906, he removed the goods to the Shreve building. He claims that this was done with the knowledge and consent of each of said companies and that they agreed that the removal should not terminate the insurance provided by the policies. On April 19, 1906, the goods were destroyed by the great fire of that date. The companies refused to pay the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Kauffman v. MaierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Williamsburg City Fire Insurance v. CaryIllinois Supreme Court · 1876
- Bresee v. Los Angeles Traction Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
- Pollock v. German Fire-InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
- Gordon v. RobertsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Gray v. RobinsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Ellis v. JewettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
- Hargett v. Gulf Insurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1936
- MacGruer v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1928
- Pierson v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.