Hawley

Hawley v. LiverPool

Good Law
102 Cal. 651·1894 Cal. LEXIS 703·36 P. 926
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 8, 1894No. 15448California1,008 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

This is an appeal by defendant, an insurance company, from a judgment recovered by plaintiff upon a fire insurance policy made by defendant to plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial. There are only two points made by appellant which require notice.

The policy provided that it should be void “ if the insured had concealed or misrepresented, in writing or otherwise, any material fact or circumstance concerning said insurance or the subject thereof.” In the written application for the policy appears the following question and answer: “ Has any company canceled or refused a policy on the property? No.” This answer was not true, as another company had canceled a policy on the property; and appellant contends that the falsity of the •answer vitiated the policy. The application was made by an agent of respondent, who testified that the question was never asked him, nor answered by him; and ■that he knew of the cancellation of a certain policy, and would have told of it if he had been asked. But waiving that matter, the fact was that the canceled policy *654 was one issued and canceled by the Alta Fire Insurance Company; and that “ the reason of the policy being canceled was…

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.