Thomas v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
| Citation | 56 S.W. 264 |
| Parties | THOMAS v. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. |
| Decision Date | 08 December 1899 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Kentucky |
"Not to be officially reported."
Petition for rehearing. Denied.
For former report, see 53 S.W. 297.
DU RELLE, J.
Counsel in his petition for rehearing appears to have misapprehended the effect of the opinion in this case. In our view, there is no conflict between the decision here and that in Insurance Co. v. Monroe (Ky.) 39 S.W. 434. In that case, as in most of those cited in the petition, it was held that the company waived the stipulation in the policy by failure to make inquiry touching the material facts affecting the risk when it issued the policy. That is not the case here. The provision in this policy that, "if the premises described in this policy be unoccupied for more than ten consecutive days, *** this policy shall be void, unless otherwise provided by agreement indorsed thereon," is not a provision as to the status of the property at that time, but a provision in futuro that if, during the period covered by the policy, the premises should be unoccupied for more than 10 consecutive days, the policy should become void. There was no existing status to waive. The policy, when issued, was perfectly valid, and continued valid until after the expiration of the 10-days' vacancy. Under the terms of this policy, it made no difference whether the house was vacant when the policy was issued or not. The contract was that it should not thereafter be vacant for more than 10 consecutive days. No question arises here of fraud, concealment, failure to make inquiry, or waiver. The stipulation simply provided for a contingency, in the event of which the policy should become void. The contingency occurred, and the policy became void. Petition overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKinney v. Providence Washington Ins. Co.
...period of time. Conley v. Queen Insurance Company of America, 256 Ky. 602, 76 S.W.2d 906, 96 A.L.R. 1255; Thomas v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, 56 S.W. 264, 21 Ky.Law Rep. 1139; Newmarket Savings Bank v. Royal Insurance Company of Liverpool, 150 Mass. 374, 23 N.E. 210; Heindselman v. T......
- State v. Tomlinson
-
Conley v. Queen Ins. Co. of America
...... habitants temporarily absent. *** If this form is attached to. a fire policy, and premises are vacant for a period exceeding. sixty (60) days or unoccupied for a period ... for a definite number of days is admitted in Thomas,. Trustee, v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 56 S.W. 264, 21 Ky. Law Rep. 1139; Westchester Fire Ins. ......
-
State v. Tomlinson, 38706.
...v. Posey, 152 S.W. (2d) 34, 347 Mo. 1088; State v. Nasello, 30 S.W. (2d) 132, 325 Mo. 442; State v. Cooper, 271 S.W. 471; State v. Neely, 56 S.W. 264; State v. McKeever, 101 S.W. (2d) 22, 339 Mo. 1006; State v. Eason, 18 S.W. (2d) 71, 322 Mo. 1239; State v. Painter, 44 S.W. (2d) 79, 329 Mo.......