Heywood v. Maine Mutual Accident Ass'n

27 A. 154, 85 Me. 289, 1893 Me. LEXIS 10
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided January 27, 1893·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Haskell, J.

Assumpsit upon a policy of insurance against accidents. The policy contained a stipulation that failure to notify the company of the injury for ten days after it was received should bar all claim therefor. It was competent for the parties to make the agreement, and they are bound by it. The plaintiff neglected to notify the company of any accident or injury to himself, until twenty-six days had elapsed.

A careful examination of the evidence shows no waiver on part of the company.

The authorities cited at the bar conclusively show that plaintiff* cannot recover; according to stipulation of the parties,

Judgment for defendant.

Peters, C. J., Walton, Libbey and Foster, JJ., concurred.

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

Heywood v. Maine Mutual Accident Ass'n, 27 A. 154, 85 Me. 289, 1893 Me. LEXIS 10 (Me. 1893).

27 A. 154 (Heywood v. Maine Mutual Accident Ass'n) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kendall v. Travelers' Protective Ass'n
169 P. 751 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1918)
Metropolitan Casualty Ins. v. Johnston
247 F. 65 (Third Circuit, 1918)
Whiteside v. North American Accident Insurance
93 N.E. 948 (New York Court of Appeals, 1911)
Johnson v. Maryland Casualty Co.
60 A. 1009 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1905)
Western Travelers Accident Ass'n v. Tomson
101 N.W. 341 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1904)
Crane v. Standard Life & Accident Insurance
3 Ohio N.P. 318 (Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati, 1896)