Mihalcho v. Massachusetts Fire & Marine Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mihalcho v. Massachusetts Fire & Marine Insurance

229 A.D. 813

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 15, 1930·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The question of increased hazard is a proper subject for expert evidence. (Cornish v. Farm Buildings Fire Ins. Co., 74 N. Y. 295; Leitch v. Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co., 66 id. 100; Carroll v. Home Insurance Co., 51 App. Div. 149.) Evidence of an offer to compromise was not competent. Van Kirk, P. J., Hinman, Whitmyer, Hill and Hasbrouck, JJ., concur. Judgment and order reversed on the law and new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

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

Per Curiam.

The question of increased hazard is a proper subject for expert evidence. (Cornish v. Farm Buildings Fire Ins. Co., 74 N. Y. 295; Leitch v. Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co., 66 id. 100; Carroll v. Home Insurance Co., 51 App. Div. 149.) Evidence of an offer to compromise was not competent. Van Kirk, P. J., Hinman, Whitmyer, Hill and Hasbrouck, JJ., concur. Judgment and order reversed on the law and new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Mihalcho v. Massachusetts Fire & Marine Insurance, 229 A.D. 813 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

229 A.D. 813 (Mihalcho v. Massachusetts Fire & Marine Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related