Shapire v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 22 May 1895 |
| Citation | 63 N.W. 614,61 Minn. 135 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | SHAPIRE v. ST. PAUL F. & M. INS. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Held, in an action upon a fire insurance policy, that under the rules laid down in Bowlin v. Insurance Co., 31 N. W. 859, 36 Minn. 433, plaintiff could not recover. Canty, J., dissenting.
Appeal from district court, St. Louis county; Charles L. Lewis, Judge.
Action on a policy of insurance by Max Shapire against the St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company. Judgment was ordered for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
John C. Hollembaek, for appellant.
Kueffner, Fauntleroy & Searles and Twomey & Morris, for respondent.
It stands admitted in this case that plaintiff did not furnish proofs of loss to defendant insurance company within the 60 days prescribed in the policy, or otherwise. To excuse this failure plaintiff offered to show that after the fire had occurred, and within 60 days, the local agents who had issued the policy, in response to plaintiff's requests for assistance in ascertaining and appraising the amount of loss, said to him that it was unnecessary for him to make out and tender formal proofs of loss, and that defendant company would send an adjuster, who would adjust and settle the claim; that he relied upon these statements, neglected to make the proofs, and that after the expiration of the 60 days the company refused to receive or accept them. The claim is made that under these circumstances the insurance company must be held to have waived proofs of loss, and to be estopped from asserting that it is not liable. There is no substantial difference as to the stipulation that proofs of loss must be made within 60 days after loss has occurred between the policy now before us and those considered in Bowlin v. Insurance Co., 36 Minn. 433, 31 N. W. 859, and Shapiro v. Insurance Co., 51 Minn. 239, 53 N. W. 463, in which it was held that such a stipulation is a condition precedent as well in respect to time as in other respects. This disposes of the contention that compliance with the stipulation was not a condition precedent to the right to recover.
The agents of defendant company by whom it is claimed the statements were made on which plaintiff relied as a waiver of the conditions were local agents, simply authorized to fix rates of insurance, and to countersign and deliver policies. Whatever incidental powers they may have had in connection with the issuance and conditions of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nickell v. Phoenix Insurance Company of Brooklyn
... ... power to waive the furnishing of proofs of loss. Wood on Ins ... [1 Ed.], p. 730; Wood on Ins. [2 Ed.], secs. 429 and 447; ... Ostrander on Ins., p. 556, ... Ins. Co., 121 Mass. 441; ... Kyte v. Com. Un. Ass. Co., 144 Mass. 43; Shapire ... v. Ins. Co., 63 N.W. 614; Kahn v. Ins. Co., 34 ... P. 1059; Engerbertson v. Ins. Co., 58 Wis ... ...
-
Nickell v. Phenix Ins. Co.
...Insurance Co. v. Kennerly (Ark.) 31 S. W. 155; Ermentraut v. Insurance Co. (Minn., divided court) 65 N. W. 635; Shapire v. Insurance Co. (Minn., divided court) 63 N. W. 614; Lohnes v. Insurance Co., 121 Mass. 439; Engebretson v. Insurance Co., 58 Wis. 301, 17 N. W. 5; McCollum v. Insurance ......
-
Mason v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
...v. Hekla F. Ins. Co., 36 Minn. 433, 31 N. W. 859; Shapiro v. Western Home Ins. Co., 51 Minn. 239, 53 N. W. 463; Shapiro v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co., 61 Minn. 135, 63 N. W. 614; and Ermentrout v. Girard F. & M. Ins. Co., 63 Minn. 305, 65 N. W. 635, — that a failure of strict compliance with......
-
Mason v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
...v. Insurance Co., 36 Minn. 433, 31 N. W. 859;Shapiro v. Western Home Ins. Co., 51 Minn. 239, 53 N. W. 463; Same v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 61 Minn. 135, 63 N. W. 614; and Ermentrout v. Insurance Co., 63 Minn. 305, 65 N. W. 635,-that a failure of strict compliance with similar provi......