Peterson v. Hartford Fire Insurance

Nebraska Supreme Court

Peterson v. Hartford Fire Insurance

140 N.W. 761, 93 Neb. 448, 1913 Neb. LEXIS 99

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 28, 1913

DocketNo. 17,044

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 140 N.W. 761 (Peterson v. Hartford Fire Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Peterson v. Hartford Fire Insurance, 140 N.W. 761, 93 Neb. 448, 1913 Neb. LEXIS 99 (Neb. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Rose, J.

This is an action to recover fire insurance under a contract of compromise and settlement fixing the loss at [449]*449$711.11. For the term of one year from March 23, 1909, defendant insured plaintiff against loss by fire to the extent of $1,000 pn a linotype and $200 on a steretoyping plant, and authorized concurrent insurance, which was written in the Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance Company to the extent of $1,300 on the linotype and $200 on the stereotyping plant. The building containing the property was destroyed by fire April 27, 1909. Plaintiff pleaded a compromise and settlement of defendant’s'proportion of the loss at $711.11. In its answer defendant denied the compromise and settlement, and pleaded the following defenses: (1) Plaintiff was not the sole owner of the property at the time of the fire, and for that reason was not entitled to any indemnity under the terms of his policy. (2) In violation of his insurance contract, lie made false statements in his proof of loss and thus invalidated his insurance. The case was tried to the court without a jury. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $240.12 only, he has appealed.

This case was decided on the identical evidence considered in Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Peterson, ante, p. 446, and for the reasons therein stated the result here must be the same.

The judgment granting relief to defendant, being outside of the issues and evidence, is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed.

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

Rose, J.

This is an action to recover fire insurance under a contract of compromise and settlement fixing the loss at [449]*449$711.11. For the term of one year from March 23, 1909, defendant insured plaintiff against loss by fire to the extent of $1,000 pn a linotype and $200 on a steretoyping plant, and authorized concurrent insurance, which was written in the Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance Company to the extent of $1,300 on the linotype and $200 on the stereotyping plant. The building containing the property was destroyed by fire April 27, 1909. Plaintiff pleaded a compromise and settlement of defendant’s'proportion of the loss at $711.11. In its answer defendant denied the compromise and settlement, and pleaded the following defenses: (1) Plaintiff was not the sole owner of the property at the time of the fire, and for that reason was not entitled to any indemnity under the terms of his policy. (2) In violation of his insurance contract, lie made false statements in his proof of loss and thus invalidated his insurance. The case was tried to the court without a jury. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $240.12 only, he has appealed.

This case was decided on the identical evidence considered in Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Peterson, ante, p. 446, and for the reasons therein stated the result here must be the same.

The judgment granting relief to defendant, being outside of the issues and evidence, is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 N.W. 761, 93 Neb. 448, 1913 Neb. LEXIS 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-hartford-fire-insurance-neb-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack