Lee v. Cas. Co. of Am.

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Writing for the CourtTHAYER, J.
PartiesLEE v. CASUALTY CO. OF AMERICA.
Decision Date15 March 1916
96 A. 952
90 Conn. 202

LEE
v.
CASUALTY CO. OF AMERICA.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 15, 1916.


96 A. 953

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Lucien F. Burpee, Judge.

Action by Thomas J. Lee against the Casualty Company of America. Judgment for defendant sutaining a demurrer, and plaintiff appeals. Error and judgment set aside and case remanded.

Action upon a policy of casualty insurance to recover the amount paid in settlement of a claim for injury caused by a casualty covered by the policy, brought to the superior court in Hartford county when a demurrer to the reply to one of the paragraphs of the defendant's answer was sustained by the court, and judgment rendered for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed, alleging error in sustaining the demurrer. Error and cause remanded.

Theodore G. Case, of Hartford, for appellant. John T. Robinson, of Hartford, for appellee.

THAYER, J. This is an action upon a policy of casualty insurance. Paragraph 9 of the complaint alleges that the plaintiff had complied with all the terms of the policy. This paragraph is denied in paragraph 9 of the answer, in this, that the policy contained a provision that upon the occurrence of a casualty covered by the policy, the plaintiff should give immediate notice of the casualty, and also of any and all claims which should be made on account of such casualty, and if afterwards any suit should be brought against him to enforce such claims, he should cause the summons, process, and other papers relating to such suit to be delivered to the company as soon as served upon him, and that he had not complied with these provisons, in that he failed to give the immediate notice required by them, and failed to turn over the summons, process, and other papers as required. The reply denies this paragraph of the answer except as admitted, and proceeds to allege that on November 3, 1913, the plaintiff gave written notice of the accident to a duly authorized agent of the defendant, who received and accepted it; that between that date and December 29, 1913, the defendant attempted to make a settlement of the claim, and did other acts by which the plaintiff was led to believe that the defendant assumed liability for the loss and damage which the plaintiff suffered by reason of the casualty; that on the last-named date the defendant requested the plaintiff to furnish further information as to the accident, including signed statements of the plaintiff and all eyewitnesses of the casualty and copies of all pleadings in the action then pending between him and the person injured in the casualty and a written report of the physical condition of the injured person; that on the same day the defendant notified the plaintiff in writing that, by reason of his failure to give immediate written notice of the casualty, the defendant "would handle the case on his behalf under reservation of rights under the policy"; that on January 19, 1914, the plaintiff forwarded to the defendant the information and papers requested; that on February 16, 1914, the defendant requested the plaintiff to deliver all papers in the action pending against him to its local attorney, which was done, and that on the 19th of March, 1914, the defendant notified the plaintiff that it had canceled the policy as of the date of issue, for failure of the plaintiff to pay the premium; and that the defendant had no further interest in the matter. The reply was demurred to upon the ground that it appears therefrom that the plaintiff did not comply with the conditions of the policy referred to in paragraph 9 of the answer, and because it does not appear that the defendant waived its right to rely upon...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 practice notes
  • State v. Coleman
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • October 22, 1974
    ...21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, § 325. '(R)ights, once waived, cannot be regained by revoking the waiver.' Lee v. Casualty Co. of America, 90 Conn. 202, 208, 96 A. 952, 954; Hendsey v. Southern New England Telephone Co., 128 Conn. 132, 135, 20 A.2d In the second place, the defendant has made no......
  • Houran v. Preferred Acc. Ins. Co. of New York, No. 109.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • November 4, 1937
    ...possible after the accident. This, it appears, is an inference, drawn from facts previously found. See Lee v. Casualty Co. of America, 90 Conn. 202, 96 A. 952, 954. The situation, so far as it affects this point, was as follows: In reply to the letter from the attorney for plaintiff's intes......
  • United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Miller
    • United States
    • Kentucky Supreme Court
    • January 20, 1931
    ...129 Ky. 627, 112 S.W. 681, 113 S.W. 824, 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) 227; Brink v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co., 80 N.Y. 108; Lee v. Casualty Co., 90 Conn. 202, 96 A. 952; Benninghoff v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 93 N.Y. 495; Gilbert v. Globe & R. Fire Ins. Co., 91 Or. 59, 174 P. 1161, 178 P. 358, 3 A.L.R. The ......
  • Howrey v. Star Insurance Company of America, 1814
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • January 9, 1934
    ...it. 14 R. C. L. 1335. Formal written notice of loss may be waived by the insurer. Indemnity Co. v. Bollas, 135 So. 174; Lee v. Casualty Co. 96 A. 952. The following cases hold that formal notice of loss may be waived. LeBlanc v. Standard Ins. Co., 95 A. 284; State Ins. Ass'n v. Lind, 172 N.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
45 cases
  • State v. Coleman
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • October 22, 1974
    ...21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, § 325. '(R)ights, once waived, cannot be regained by revoking the waiver.' Lee v. Casualty Co. of America, 90 Conn. 202, 208, 96 A. 952, 954; Hendsey v. Southern New England Telephone Co., 128 Conn. 132, 135, 20 A.2d In the second place, the defendant has made no......
  • Houran v. Preferred Acc. Ins. Co. of New York, No. 109.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • November 4, 1937
    ...possible after the accident. This, it appears, is an inference, drawn from facts previously found. See Lee v. Casualty Co. of America, 90 Conn. 202, 96 A. 952, 954. The situation, so far as it affects this point, was as follows: In reply to the letter from the attorney for plaintiff's intes......
  • United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Miller
    • United States
    • Kentucky Supreme Court
    • January 20, 1931
    ...129 Ky. 627, 112 S.W. 681, 113 S.W. 824, 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) 227; Brink v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co., 80 N.Y. 108; Lee v. Casualty Co., 90 Conn. 202, 96 A. 952; Benninghoff v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 93 N.Y. 495; Gilbert v. Globe & R. Fire Ins. Co., 91 Or. 59, 174 P. 1161, 178 P. 358, 3 A.L.R. The ......
  • U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Miller
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • January 20, 1931
    ...129 Ky. 627, 112 S.W. 681, 113 S.W. 824, 19 L.R.A. (N. S.) 227; Brink v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co., 80 N.Y. 108; Lee v. Casualty Co., 90 Conn. 202, 96 A. 952; Benninghoff v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 93 N.Y. 495; Gilbert v. Globe & R. Fire Ins. Co., 91 Or. 59, 174 P. 1161, 178 P. 358, 3 A.L.R. 205......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT