Levi v. Palatine Ins. Co.

Citation75 N.H. 551,78 A. 617
PartiesLEVI v. PALATINE INS. CO.
Decision Date06 December 1910
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

Exceptions from Superior Court, Rockingham County, Pike, Judge.

Action by Kate Levi against the Palatine Insurance Company. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendants except. Exceptions overruled.

Assumpsit, upon a fire insurance policy for $400 upon the plaintiff's stock in trade, consisting of dress goods and shoes, which was damaged by smoke and water on September 6, 1909. Trial by jury, and verdict for the plaintiff. The defendants moved for a nonsuit on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to show a compliance with the terms of the policy with respect to proof of loss and conditioning; that there was no evidence that the plaintiff made any effort to "condition" the goods, "to get them back into as good condition as she could"; and that the plaintiff sold or disposed of a material part of the goods claimed to be damaged before the expiration of the time within which the defendants had a right to ask for an appraisal. The motion was denied, and the defendants excepted.

There was evidence that shortly after the fire the plaintiff gave the defendants' local agent a written list of the goods damaged, and that they were promptly informed of the loss. September 11th, their agent for the purpose examined the damaged goods and fixed the loss at a sum less than the plaintiff would accept, and upon her refusal, the defendants' adjuster told her that if she declined to accept the offer, she would be obliged to sue the company.

The provisions of the policy relied on are as follows: "In case difference of opinion shall arise as to the amount of any loss under the policy other than on buildings totally destroyed, unless the company and the insured shall, within 15 days after notice of the loss, mutually agree upon referees to adjust the same, either party may, upon giving written notice to the other, apply to a justice of the Supreme Court, who shall appoint three referees, one of whom shall be thoroughly acquainted with the kind of property to) be considered, and their award in writing, after proper notice and bearing, shall be final and binding on the parties. In case of any loss or damage under this policy, a statement in writing, signed and sworn to by the insured, shall be forthwith rendered to the company, setting forth the value of the property insured, in detail, the interest of the insured therein, all other insurance thereon, the purposes for which and the persons by whom the building insured, or containing the property insured, was used, and the time at which and the manner in which the fire originated, so far as known to the insured. The company may also examine the books of account and vouchers of the insured, and make extracts from the same, and shall have access to the premises and property damaged. It is moreover understood that there can be no abandonment of the property insured to the company, and that the company shall not in any case be liable for more than the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Shields v. Vt. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • 1 Octubre 1929
    ...the lightning clause of the policy, and the claim of the defense was that the building was demolished by wind); Levi v. Palatine Ins. Co., 75 N. H. 551, 78 A. 617, 618; Flynn v. Orient Ins. Co., 77 N. H. 431, 92 A. 737, 738; Oakes v. Ins. Co., 112 Me. 52, 90 A. 707, 708 (a statutory arbitra......
  • Shields v. Vermont Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • 1 Octubre 1929
    ... ... the lightning clause of the policy, and the claim of the ... defense was that the building was demolished by wind); ... Levi v. Palatine Ins. Co. , 75 N.H. 551, 78 ... A. 617, 618; Flynn v. Orient Ins. Co. , 77 ... N.H. 431, 92 A. 737, 738; Oakes v. Ins ... Co ... ...
  • Mulhall v. Nashua Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • 1 Noviembre 1921
    ...43 N. H. 621, 623, 80 Am. Dec. 197; Lyman v. Littleton, 50 N. H. 42; Tasker v. Kenton Ins. Co., 58 N. H. 469, 470; Levi v. Insurance Co., 75 N. H. 551, 552, 78 Atl. 617; Flynn v. Orient Insurance Co., 77 N. H. 431, 92 Atl. 737; Kelsea v. Insurance Co., Does the evidence support the finding ......
  • Maravas v. Am. Equitable Assur. Corp. of N.Y.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • 1 Febrero 1927
    ...care for it after the fires. If this fact were established, the plaintiff could not recover for the damage thus caused. Levi v. Insurance Company, 75 N. H. 551, 78 A. 617. But the question of plaintiff's conduct was not submitted to the jury, and has never been determined. Consequently, the......
  • 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