American Fire Ins. Co. v. Stuart
| Citation | 38 S.W. 395 |
| Parties | AMERICAN FIRE INS. CO. v. STUART et al. |
| Decision Date | 03 December 1896 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from Bowie county court; John J. King, Judge.
Action by J. W. Stuart & Son against the American Fire Insurance Company on a fire insurance policy. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed.
Todd & Rogers, for appellant. Dan T. Leary and Hudgins & Estes, for appellees.
The appellees brought this suit to recover upon an insurance policy for damage by fire to their goods in store in the city of Texarkana. The following conditions appear in the policy: "This company shall not be held to have waived any provision or condition of this policy, or any forfeiture thereof, by any requirement, act, or proceeding on its part relating to the appraisal, or to any examination therein provided for; and the loss shall not become payable until sixty days after the notice, ascertainment, and satisfactory proof of the loss herein required to have been received by this company, including an award by appraisers when appraisal has been required." "No suit or action on this policy for the recovery of any claim shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity until after full compliance by the insured with all the foregoing requirements." A condition of the policy that, in the event of disagreement between the insured and the company as to the amount of loss sustained, it should be ascertained by appraisers before suit could be maintained on the policy for the recovery of any claim thereunder, is valid, and the appraisement is a condition precedent to the bringing of such a suit. May, Ins. § 493; 2 Wood, Ins. §§ 456, 457; Insurance Co. v. Clancy, 71 Tex. 5, 8 S. W. 630; Id., 83 Tex. 113, 18 S. W. 439; Hamilton v. Insurance Co., 136 U. S. 242, 10 Sup. Ct. 945; President, etc., of Delaware & H. Canal Co. v. Pennsylvania Coal Co., 50 N. Y. 250; Carroll v. Insurance Co., 72 Cal. 297, 13 Pac. 863; and other authorities cited in the brief of appellant. It must be observed that in many of the authorities cited the same provision as to appraisement does not appear as the one in policy in suit. In some instances the requirement of appraisement has been left to the request of either party, and in others it has not been made obligatory by the use of words such as "may," instead of "shall." The policy in this case is peremptory, and the appraisement would be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Universal Underwriters of Tex. Ins. Co.
...1926, no writ) (noting that insurer waited fifty-eight days after receiving proof of loss to make demand for appraisal); Am. Fire Ins. Co. v. Stuart, 38 S.W. 395, 396 (Tex.Civ.App.1896, no writ) (“The retention of the proofs of loss by appellant for an unreasonable time without objection wo......
-
In re Allstate County Mut. Ins. Co.
...S.W. 275, 276 (Tex.Civ.App.1926, no writ); Aetna Ins. Co. v. Shacklett, 57 S.W. 583, 583 (Tex.Civ.App.1900, no writ); American Fire Ins. Co. v. Stuart, 38 S.W. 395, 395 (Tex.Civ. App.1896, no writ); Manchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Simmons, 12 Tex.Civ.App. 607, 35 S.W. 722, 724 (1896, writ ref'd......
-
de Paola v. Nat'l Ins. Co.
...in the amount of the loss claimed, and thereby waived its right to have it determined by arbitration." See, also, American Fire Ins. Co. v. Stuart (Tex. Civ. App.) 38 S. W. 395; Manchester F. Assurance Co. v. Koerner, 13 Inch App. 372, 40 N. E. 1110, 41 N. E. 848, 55 Am. St. Rep. 231; Vangi......
-
Virginia Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Cannon
...of the proofs of loss, which did not contain an award of appraisers, would have been a waiver of the requirement. Insurance Co. v. Stuart (Tex. Civ. App.) 38 S. W. 395. It is clear that the appraisement, if any, was to be made before the proofs of loss were to be furnished, and was required......