Baker v. Permanent Insurance

Ohio Court of Appeals

Baker v. Permanent Insurance

138 N.E.2d 171, 73 Ohio Law. Abs. 491, 1955 Ohio App. LEXIS 802

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 5, 1955

DocketNo. 2293

StatusPublished

This text of 138 N.E.2d 171 (Baker v. Permanent Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baker v. Permanent Insurance, 138 N.E.2d 171, 73 Ohio Law. Abs. 491, 1955 Ohio App. LEXIS 802 (Ohio Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By THE COURT:

This is an action brought under the terms of a policy of insurance to recover for a loss coming within its provisions. One of the duties imposed upon the assured by its express provisions required that proof of loss be filed with the company “within sixty days after the occurrence of loss, unless such time is extended in writing by the company * *

The trial court in a separate finding of facts found that the plaintiff had suffered the loss complained of, but that the terms of the policy requiring notice to the insurance company had not been complied with, in that “plaintiff failed to introduce any notice or proof of loss to the defendant company.” A judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant which we find is in accordance with law. See National Fire Ins. Co. v. Frees, 2 Abs 444; Independent Directory Corp. v. Vandenbrock, 57 Abs 313; 22 O. Jur. 729.

[492]*492The question of waiver or estoppel is not presented for the reason that no attempt was ever made to notify the company or any of its agents of said loss; hence, it performed no act which could constitute a waiver of the limitation clause. The record discloses that only the mortgagee with an insurable interest was notified, who was not an agent of the insurance company.

Finding no error in the record the judgment will be affirmed.

MILLER, PJ, HORNBECK and WISEMAN, JJ, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

By THE COURT:

This is an action brought under the terms of a policy of insurance to recover for a loss coming within its provisions. One of the duties imposed upon the assured by its express provisions required that proof of loss be filed with the company “within sixty days after the occurrence of loss, unless such time is extended in writing by the company * *

The trial court in a separate finding of facts found that the plaintiff had suffered the loss complained of, but that the terms of the policy requiring notice to the insurance company had not been complied with, in that “plaintiff failed to introduce any notice or proof of loss to the defendant company.” A judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant which we find is in accordance with law. See National Fire Ins. Co. v. Frees, 2 Abs 444; Independent Directory Corp. v. Vandenbrock, 57 Abs 313; 22 O. Jur. 729.

[492]*492The question of waiver or estoppel is not presented for the reason that no attempt was ever made to notify the company or any of its agents of said loss; hence, it performed no act which could constitute a waiver of the limitation clause. The record discloses that only the mortgagee with an insurable interest was notified, who was not an agent of the insurance company.

Finding no error in the record the judgment will be affirmed.

MILLER, PJ, HORNBECK and WISEMAN, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 N.E.2d 171, 73 Ohio Law. Abs. 491, 1955 Ohio App. LEXIS 802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-permanent-insurance-ohioctapp-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack