White

White v. Home Mutual Insurance Co.

Good Law
128 Cal. 131·1900 Cal. LEXIS 555·60 P. 666
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 20, 1900S.F. No. 1392.California1,120 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Garoutte, J.

This appeal involves a contract of fire insurance, and the first question to be considered arises upon the •sufficiency of the complaint. It appears thereby that the fire 'occurred June 8, 1896, and that proof of loss was made October 19th thereafter. The contract of insurance was attached to the •complaint as an exhibit, and in that exhibit we find the following provisions: “And within sixty days after the fire, unless such time is extended in writing by this company, shall render a statement to this company signed and sworn to,” etc. And ■again: “No suit or action on this policy for the recovery of any claim shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity until after full compliance by the insured with all the foregoing requirements, nor unless commenced within twelve months next after the fire.” In view of these provisions of the policy, does the complaint state a cause of action, proofs having been made some four months after the fire, and the policy requiring such proofs to be made within sixty days thereafter? It will be borne in mind that no attempt is made by the pleader to set out facta constituting a waiver.

Ostrander on Insurance, section 223, citing 'Wood on…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.