TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Phoenix Assurance Company of New York v. Harry Harless Company, Inc.

PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HARRY HARLESS COMPANY, Inc., Et Al., Defendants-Appellants

Phoenix Assurance Co. of N.Y. v. Harry Harless Co., 414 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1969)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
July 23, 1969
Docket
No. 27395
Judges
Bell, Goldberg, Atkins
Citations
414 F.2d 7941969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11388

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Phoenix sought a declaratory judgment pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2201 to establish that Harless failed to comply with the notice provision of his liability insurance policy and was: thus barred from asserting a claim. The jury found for Harless. The trial judge then entered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Phoenix. We affirm.

The policy in question provided that the insured had the duty to inform the company of an occurrence or claim “as soon as practicable.” Compliance with this condition is necessary in order that policy coverage be preserved. The claim involved a fire on premises protected by fire extinguishers serviced by Harless. The fire occurred on March 16, 1967 and Harless notified Phoenix of the possibility of a claim on July 17, 1967.

The evidence reflects that Harless knew several days after the fire that fire extinguishers serviced by his company were involved and might have failed. From this knowledge Harless knew or should have known that claims might be made against his company. This point in time was well prior to July 17.

The standard by which a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is to be tested is set by Boeing Company v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1969). We hold the trial judge’s action correct under this standard in view of the evidence presented.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1970: 11971: 21972: 21986: 12008: 12011: 119702026peak 1971 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
The Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1969) 2,111

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list