McCormack v. North British Insurance
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Grant v. Sun Indemnity Co. of New York (Cal. 1938)
- Bank of Oroville v. Minnesota Fire Insurance (Cal. Ct. App. 1933)
- Cudahy Packing Co. v. Munson S. S. Line (2d Cir. 1927)
- Borger v. Connecticut Fire Insurance (Cal. Ct. App. 1914)
- Commercial Union Assur. Co., Limited v. Shults (Okla. 1913)
- California Sav. Bank of San Diego v. American Surety Co. of New York (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California 1897)
- Long Creek Building Ass'n v. State Insurance (Or. 1896)
- Successors of Homar, Colom & Co. v. British America Assurance Co. (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1928)
- Sucn. de Homar, Colom & Co., S. en C. v. British America Assurance Co. (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1928)
- Quiñones v. L'Union (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1925)
- Western Home Insurance v. Thorp (Kan. 1892)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Dissenting Opinion
I dissent. I think there was 'evidence that the proof was waived.
Beatty, O. J., being disqualified, did not participate-in the decision.
Rehearing denied.
Opinion of the Court
Action upon a fire insurance policy. Trial by the court. Motion for nonsuit on the ground, among others, that there was a failure to prove a compliance with the conditions of the policy relative to the making of the preliminary proofs of loss subsequent to the fire, and that the action was prematurely commenced, in that it had been commenced before proofs of loss were made.
The court below granted the nonsuit, and the plaintiff appeals.
The policy contained the usual condition as to the making of preliminary proof of loss, and provided that the amount to be paid under the policy should be paid “ sixty days after the proofs shall have been made by the assured and received at their office, and the loss shall have been ascertained and proved in accordance with the terms and provisions of the policy.”
Where such preliminary proof is required by the policy, the assured must allege and prove that the proof has been made or that the requirement has been waived. (Doyle v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 44 Cal. 264; May on Insurance, sec. 465.)
There was no evidence that the necessary proof of loss had been given, nor was it shown that such proof had been waived.
Judgment affirmed.
Paterson, J., Thornton, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.