TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

German Insurance v. Ward

The German Insurance Company v. Elizabeth Ward

German Ins. v. Ward, 90 Ill. 550 (1878)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 15, 1878
Citations
90 Ill. 550
Syllabus
Insurance—waiver of proof of loss at home office. If a policy of insurance requires notice and proof of a loss to be delivered to the secretary of the company at the home office, and it is given to a local agent of the company without objections on this score, and payment refused upon a claim that the policy had been canceled, the provision in the policy as to the place of giving the notice and proof will be regarded as waived, and can not be set up to defeat a recovery on the policy.
Summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Joseph E. Gary, Judge, presiding.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam: This case is, in the main, like The Lycoming Fire Insurance Company v. Elizabeth Ward, ante, p. 545, and will be governed by the decision in that case. In the Lycoming case it was admitted, on the trial, that all preliminary steps after the fire had been taken to enable the plaintiff to recover if the policy was binding on the company, while in this case, it is contended that notice and proof of loss were not delivered to the secretary of the company at the home office at Freeport, as required by the policy.

It appears that notice and proofs of loss were served upon defendant at the office of the company in Chicago. No objection was made at the time that the service was at the wrong office, but the agent of the company refused to receive proofs of the loss, on the ground alone that the policy had been canceled and was not in force. Under such circumstances we must hold that the company waived that provision of the policy requiring proof of loss to be delivered to the secretary at Freeport, Illinois.

When proofs of loss were served upon defendant at its office in Chicago, if the company intended to insist upon a strict compliance with the terms of the policy in that regard, the objection should then have been made so that plaintiff could then have obviated the difficulty by leaving the proofs at the home office. The objection not, however, having been made, it must be regarded as waived.

Some other technical questions have been raised, but as they do not affect the substantial merits of the controversy, it will not be necessary to consider them here.

For the reasons given in the Lycoming case, the judgment will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1904: 11916: 11954: 119042026peak 1904 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. German-American Insurance v. Paul83 S.W. 60 (Ct. App. Ind. Terr. 1904)
  2. Bragg v. Royal Insurance98 A. 632 (Me. 1916)
  3. Heirty v. North River Insurance122 N.E.2d 592 (Ill. App. Ct. 1954)

Most recent

  1. Heirty v. North River Insurance122 N.E.2d 592 (Ill. App. Ct. 1954)
  2. Bragg v. Royal Insurance98 A. 632 (Me. 1916)
  3. German-American Insurance v. Paul83 S.W. 60 (Ct. App. Ind. Terr. 1904)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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