Steinbach v. Insurance Co.

Supreme Court

Steinbach v. Insurance Co.

80 U.S. 183, 20 L. Ed. 615, 13 Wall. 183, 1871 U.S. LEXIS 1326

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided March 25, 1872·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

*185 The CHIEF JUSTICE

delivered the opinion of the court.

The only question in this case arises upon the construction of the policy sued upon.

It contained a clause providing that fireworks, among other things, should be specially written in the policy. Otherwise they were not to be covered by the insurance. It is not pretended that fireworks are included under the name of fire-crackers. But the plaintiff contends that they are included in the description of “other articles in his line of business.” The answer to this is, that the policy itself requires that fireworks shall be specially written in it. They are among the goods described as specially hazardous, and add 50 cents on the $100 to the ordinary rate of insurance.

It is impossible to think they are described by the general terms used in the policy. The insurance was at the ordinary rates. There can be no doubt that the evidence was properly rejected; and the judgment of the Circuit Court must, therefore, be

Affirmed.

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

*185 The CHIEF JUSTICE

delivered the opinion of the court.

The only question in this case arises upon the construction of the policy sued upon.

It contained a clause providing that fireworks, among other things, should be specially written in the policy. Otherwise they were not to be covered by the insurance. It is not pretended that fireworks are included under the name of fire-crackers. But the plaintiff contends that they are included in the description of “other articles in his line of business.” The answer to this is, that the policy itself requires that fireworks shall be specially written in it. They are among the goods described as specially hazardous, and add 50 cents on the $100 to the ordinary rate of insurance.

It is impossible to think they are described by the general terms used in the policy. The insurance was at the ordinary rates. There can be no doubt that the evidence was properly rejected; and the judgment of the Circuit Court must, therefore, be

Affirmed.

Steinbach v. Insurance Co., 80 U.S. 183, 20 L. Ed. 615, 13 Wall. 183, 1871 U.S. LEXIS 1326 (1872).

Pincite

80 U.S. 183 (Steinbach v. Insurance Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related