Urbaniak v. Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark, New Jersey

116 N.E. 413, 227 Mass. 132
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided May 25, 1917·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Braley, J.

The policies being in the standard form prescribed by R. L. c. 118, § 60, the plaintiffs after the loss were required to render forthwith to the company a statement in writing, signed and sworn to, setting forth the value of the property insured, their interest therein and other insurance thereon in detail, the purpose for which and the persons by whom the building insured was used, “and the time at which and the manner in which the fire originated, so far as known to the insured.” While conceding that such statements were not furnished, the plaintiffs contend, that this condition was waived by the conduct and assurances of the defendants’ agent through whom the policies were obtained, and by the agreement of reference and appearance of the defendants before the referees upon whose awards the actions are brought.

[134] The jury undoubtedly could have found that the plaintiff Willhhn Urbaniak, who appears to have acted for his wife as well as himself, was illiterate and unable to read the policies, and relied upon the representations of the agent, “leave it to me and I will take care of it,” and that he had "sent your papers” and that he "would get your insurance.” But, as the evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs fails to show that in mailing the representations the agent acted within the scope of his authority, there was no waiver on this gromnj.

Footnotes

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

Urbaniak v. Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark, New Jersey, 116 N.E. 413, 227 Mass. 132 (Mass. 1917).

116 N.E. 413 (Urbaniak v. Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark, New Jersey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ivester v. Raymond (In re Raymond)
44 B.R. 611 (D. Massachusetts, 1984)
Sea Fever Corp. v. Hartford Fire Insurance
3 Mass. Supp. 676 (Massachusetts District Court, 1982)
Augenstein v. Insurance Co. of North America
360 N.E.2d 320 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1977)
Bogosian v. New York Life Insurance
53 N.E.2d 217 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1944)
Barton v. Automobile Insurance
5 Mass. App. Div. 457 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1940)
Liddell v. Standard Accident Insurance
187 N.E. 39 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
Chauncey v. Royal Insurance
175 N.E. 638 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
Inventasch v. Superior Fire Insurance Co.
138 A. 39 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1927)
Inventasch v. Superior Fire Insurance
3 R.I. Dec. 119 (Superior Court of Rhode Island, 1927)
Long v. Agricultural Insurance
153 N.E. 792 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1926)
Shapiro v. Security Insurance
152 N.E. 370 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1926)
Cass v. Lord
128 N.E. 716 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1920)
German-American Insurance v. Shepherd
126 N.E. 447 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1920)