Donahue v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 16 October 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 1622-A,1622-A |
Citation | 295 A.2d 693,110 R.I. 603 |
Parties | Edward T. DONAHUE, Jr., et al. v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY. ppeal. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This is a civil action in which the plaintiffs, as the named insureds in a homeowners policy issued by the defendant, seek to be indemnified for property damage, allegedly caused by the negligence of a third person. 1
The case was tried to a Superior Court justice, sitting with a jury, and resulted in the trial justice granting defendant's motion for a directed verdict. It is before us on plaintiffs' appeal from the judgment accordingly entered.
The directed verdict was based on the insureds' failure to comply with two conditions found in the policy. They are that the insureds shall supply the insurer with a sworn proof of loss within 60 days after a loss has been sustained and that suit shall be commenced within 12 months after the inception of the loss. We need consider only the second of these conditions.
The insureds seek the benefit of our holding in Pickering v. American Employers Ins. Co., R.I., 282 A.2d 584 (1971), 2 where we said that an insurer could not rely on any of the so-called notice provisions of its policy unless it could demonstrate that it had been prejudiced by the lack of notice. The insureds urge us to extend the rule in Pickering and require a showing by the insurer of prejudice before it can invoke the one-year contractual limitation on their right to sue. Even assuming that the insureds can rely on the prejudice requirement set forth in Pickering, we will not extend it to situations where the insureds have failed to commence suit within the time specified in the policy.
The requirement in Pickering that an insurer show prejudice before it can rely on noncompliance with the notice provisions was prompted by an expressed recognition that today's insurance contract is furnished to an insured on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Moreover, there is an implicit realization on our part that in this day and age attempts to comply with notice provisions are sometimes carried on in a very informal way which frequently consists of no more than a telephone call by an insured to the seller of the policy who then, because of his desire to serve his customer, takes over from there. We never...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rory v. Continental Ins. Co.
...Co., 474 N.W.2d 221 (Minn.App., 1991); Commonwealth v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 462 Pa. 268, 341 A.2d 74 (1975); Donahue v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 110 R.I. 603, 295 A.2d 693 (1972); Hebert v. Jarvis & Rice & White Ins., Inc., 134 Vt. 472, 365 A.2d 271 102. "Insurance policies should be read ......
-
Textron, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...See also Siravo v. Great American Insurance Co., 122 R.I. 538, 541, 410 A.2d 116, 117-18 (1980); Donahue v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 110 R.I. 603, 604, 295 A.2d 693, 694 (1972).7 Other courts have drawn similar inferences. See Burns, 929 F.2d at 1425 ("[a] claims-made policy reduces the......
-
Herman v. Valley Ins. Co.
...on suit limitation provision); Simms v. Allstate Ins. Co., 27 Wash.App. 872, 621 P.2d 155 (1980) (same); Donahue v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, 110 RI. 603, 295 A.2d 693 (1972) (same).6 Our earlier conclusion that the suit limitation provision is not a condition of forfeiture makes dis......
-
Siravo v. Great American Ins. Co.
...it could demonstrate that it had been prejudiced by the lack of notice. 3 Id. at 160, 282 A.2d at 593; Donahue v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 110 R.I. 603, 604, 295 A.2d 693, 693 (1972). We based our holding on the express recognition that an insurance policy is not a true consensual arran......