Comeau v. Phoenix Assurance Co. of New York

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Comeau v. Phoenix Assurance Co. of New York

215 N.E.2d 175, 350 Mass. 769, 1966 Mass. LEXIS 861

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 3, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 215 N.E.2d 175 (Comeau v. Phoenix Assurance Co. of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Comeau v. Phoenix Assurance Co. of New York, 215 N.E.2d 175, 350 Mass. 769, 1966 Mass. LEXIS 861 (Mass. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff administratrix, having recovered judgment by default in an action of tort against one Comeau, arising from an accident on March 19,1961, brings this action in contract against the defendant insurer on a policy which included coverage “for bodily injury caused by uninsured automobiles”; and which required, as a condition precedent to an action under it, that “As soon as practicable, the [770]*770insured or other person making claim shall give to the company written proof of claim . . ..” Both parties have exceptions before us. Dispositive of the case is the finding .of the judge, sitting without jury, that the first written notice of the claim under the policy was given to the insurer by letter dated October 11, 1961. His ruling that the conditions of the policy were not met in that the notice was not given “as soon as practicable” was correct. Depot Cafe Inc. v. Century Indem. Co. 321 Mass. 220, 223-224. The finding for the defendant was right. The plaintiff’s exceptions are overruled. The defendant’s exceptions, in accordance with the stipulation, are dismissed.

Paul J: Liaeos & Katherine Liaoos lazo, for the plaintiff, submitted a brief. Edward J. Barshak for the defendant.

So ordered.

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

The plaintiff administratrix, having recovered judgment by default in an action of tort against one Comeau, arising from an accident on March 19,1961, brings this action in contract against the defendant insurer on a policy which included coverage “for bodily injury caused by uninsured automobiles”; and which required, as a condition precedent to an action under it, that “As soon as practicable, the [770]*770insured or other person making claim shall give to the company written proof of claim . . ..” Both parties have exceptions before us. Dispositive of the case is the finding .of the judge, sitting without jury, that the first written notice of the claim under the policy was given to the insurer by letter dated October 11, 1961. His ruling that the conditions of the policy were not met in that the notice was not given “as soon as practicable” was correct. Depot Cafe Inc. v. Century Indem. Co. 321 Mass. 220, 223-224. The finding for the defendant was right. The plaintiff’s exceptions are overruled. The defendant’s exceptions, in accordance with the stipulation, are dismissed.

Paul J: Liaeos & Katherine Liaoos lazo, for the plaintiff, submitted a brief. Edward J. Barshak for the defendant.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 N.E.2d 175, 350 Mass. 769, 1966 Mass. LEXIS 861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/comeau-v-phoenix-assurance-co-of-new-york-mass-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack