Loughlin v. Firemen's Ins. Co. Of Washington and George-Town

D.C. Circuit

Loughlin v. Firemen's Ins. Co. Of Washington and George-Town

186 F.2d 357, 88 U.S. App. D.C. 109

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 21, 1950

Docket10673

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 186 F.2d 357 (Loughlin v. Firemen's Ins. Co. Of Washington and George-Town) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Loughlin v. Firemen's Ins. Co. Of Washington and George-Town, 186 F.2d 357, 88 U.S. App. D.C. 109 (D.C. Cir. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

PROCTOR, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment for defendant (appellee) in a suit on a fire insurance policy. At conclusion of all evidence the trial court directed a verdict for the insurance carrier upon several grounds, including the undisputed fact that assured (appellant) failed to comply with the demand of the carrier, made agreeably to terms of the policy, to submit to examination under oath and produce certain records. Uncontradicted evidence leaves no doubt that the requirement of the policy was knowingly and intentionally violated without reasonable justification or excuse, notwithstanding another valid provision which made compliance a condition precedent to suit. Cf. Roberto v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 7 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 811; American Macaroni Mfg. Co. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 1947, 164 F.2d 878; Gipps Brewing Corp. v. Central-Mfrs’. Mut. Ins. Co., 7 Cir., 1945, 147 F.2d 6; Merchant’s Ins. Co. v. Lilgeomont, 5 Cir., 1936, 84 F.2d 685. In our opinion the verdict was properly directed upon this ground. We need not deal with other grounds upon which the court acted.

Affirmed.

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

PROCTOR, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment for defendant (appellee) in a suit on a fire insurance policy. At conclusion of all evidence the trial court directed a verdict for the insurance carrier upon several grounds, including the undisputed fact that assured (appellant) failed to comply with the demand of the carrier, made agreeably to terms of the policy, to submit to examination under oath and produce certain records. Uncontradicted evidence leaves no doubt that the requirement of the policy was knowingly and intentionally violated without reasonable justification or excuse, notwithstanding another valid provision which made compliance a condition precedent to suit. Cf. Roberto v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 7 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 811; American Macaroni Mfg. Co. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 1947, 164 F.2d 878; Gipps Brewing Corp. v. Central-Mfrs’. Mut. Ins. Co., 7 Cir., 1945, 147 F.2d 6; Merchant’s Ins. Co. v. Lilgeomont, 5 Cir., 1936, 84 F.2d 685. In our opinion the verdict was properly directed upon this ground. We need not deal with other grounds upon which the court acted.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 F.2d 357, 88 U.S. App. D.C. 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loughlin-v-firemens-ins-co-of-washington-and-george-town-cadc-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack