McCormack v. North British Insurance

21 P. 14, 78 Cal. 468, 1889 Cal. LEXIS 619
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 22, 1889
DocketNo. 12577
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 21 P. 14 (McCormack v. North British Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McCormack v. North British Insurance, 21 P. 14, 78 Cal. 468, 1889 Cal. LEXIS 619 (Cal. 1889).

Opinions

Works, J.

Action upon a fire insurance policy. Trial by the court. Motion for nonsuit on the ground, among others, that there was a failure to prove a compliance with the conditions of the policy relative to the making of the preliminary proofs of loss subsequent to the fire, and that the action was prematurely commenced, in that it had been commenced before proofs of loss were made.

The court below granted the nonsuit, and the plaintiff appeals.

The policy contained the usual condition as to the making of preliminary proof of loss, and provided that the amount to be paid under the policy should be paid “ sixty days after the proofs shall have been made by the assured and received at their office, and the loss shall have been ascertained and proved in accordance with the terms and provisions of the policy.”

Where such preliminary proof is required by the policy, the assured must allege and prove that the proof has been made or that the requirement has been waived. (Doyle v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 44 Cal. 264; May on Insurance, sec. 465.)

There was no evidence that the necessary proof of loss had been given, nor was it shown that such proof had been waived.

[470]*470The nonsuit was therefore properly granted.

Judgment affirmed.

Paterson, J., Thornton, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

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

Related

Grant v. Sun Indemnity Co. of New York
80 P.2d 996 (California Supreme Court, 1938)
Bank of Oroville v. Minnesota Fire Insurance
23 P.2d 83 (California Court of Appeal, 1933)
Successors of Homar, Colom & Co. v. British America Assurance Co.
38 P.R. 708 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1928)
Sucn. de Homar, Colom & Co., S. en C. v. British America Assurance Co.
38 P.R. Dec. 790 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1928)
Cudahy Packing Co. v. Munson S. S. Line
22 F.2d 898 (Second Circuit, 1927)
Quiñones v. L'Union
34 P.R. 388 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1925)
Borger v. Connecticut Fire Insurance
142 P. 115 (California Court of Appeal, 1914)
Commercial Union Assur. Co., Limited v. Shults
1913 OK 138 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
California Sav. Bank of San Diego v. American Surety Co. of New York
82 F. 866 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California, 1897)
Long Creek Building Ass'n v. State Insurance
46 P. 366 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1896)
Western Home Insurance v. Thorp
48 Kan. 239 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 P. 14, 78 Cal. 468, 1889 Cal. LEXIS 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccormack-v-north-british-insurance-cal-1889.