Cohen v. Commercial Cas. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 14 December 1931 |
| Parties | COHEN v. COMMERCIAL CASUALTY INS. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Franklin T. Hammond, Judge.
Against by Gussie Cohen against the Commercial Casualty Insurance Company. On report from the superior court.
Judgment for defendant on the verdict.
W. J. Barry, of Boston, for plaintiff.
G. P. Beckford, of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action of contract on a policy of burglary insurance issued by the defendant to the original plaintiff, Max Waldo Cohen, from its New York office. The defendant also had a Boston office. The policy covered the property of the insured, his wife and son at 801 Riverside Drive, New York, where his wife and son lived and where he went from his law office in Boston Saturday nights, returning to Boston Sunday nights. A loss took place under the policy during the absence of the insured. Due notice was given and proofs of loss signed by the insured were filed in proper form. One clause of the policy provided, in part, that the insured upon request of the company should submit himself and, so far as he is able, the members of his household to an examination by any company representative, under oath if required. The insured's family had moved to Boston when the insurer requested that the insured and his wife submit themselves for examination with a request that he fix the date when it would be convenient for them to call at the defendant's New York office for such examination. He at first notified the company that he would come to its New York office at a specified time, but he did not go, although his wife and son went to the office of the defendant in New York on the date set to testify as to the loss, stating that they were ready to be examined and also that the insured knew nothing about the loss and would not appear, and they were told by a representative of the defendant that he would not examine the wife and son unless the insured himself was present. Later the defendant again asked the insured to set a date when both he and his wife would call at the defendant's New York office for an examination. The attorney for the insured then wrote the defendant a letter in which he referred to the fact that the insured and his family had returned to Boston to live and stated that they were ready to submit to an examination by any representative of the company but felt that their presence in New York...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellis v. Safety Ins. Co.
...under oath constitutes a material and substantial breach of the insurance contract as a matter of law. Cohen v. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co., 277 Mass. 460, 462, 178 N.E. 726 (1931). Mello v. Hingham Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 421 Mass. 333, 337, 656 N.E.2d 1247 (1995). Ellis has not refuted Safet......
-
Sheehan v. Commercial Travelers' Mut. Acc. Ass'n
...E. 188, L. R. A. 1918E, 111;Boston Elevated Railway v. Maryland Casualty Co., 232 Mass. 246, 122 N. E. 196;Cohen v. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co., 277 Mass. 460, 462, 178 N. E. 726;Friedman v. Orient Ins. Co., 278 Mass. 596, 598, 599, 180 N. E. 617. Even if, as we do not decide, the policy i......
-
Hanover Ins. v. Custom Home Theater
...at 337, 656 N.E.2d 1247. Rymsha v. Trust Ins. Co., 51 Mass.App.Ct. 414, 417, 746 N.E.2d 561 (2001). See Cohen v. Commercial Cas. Ins. Co., 277 Mass. 460, 462, 178 N.E. 726 (1931). "A condition precedent defines an event which must occur before ... an obligation to perform arises under [a] c......
-
Central Nat. Ins. Co. of Omaha v. Manufacturers Acceptance Corp.
...is no such waiver here. Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Jones, et al., 23 Tenn.App. 582, 135 S.W.2d 947 (1939); Cohen v. Commercial Cas. Ins. Co., 277 Mass. 460, 178 N.E. 726 (1931); 7 Am.Jur.2d 466, Insurance, § 139. The filing of the requisite Proof of loss may obviate the necessity for giving N......