Studer v. Hudson Insurance Co.
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1941, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Supornick v. National Retailers Mutual Insurance Co. (Minn. 1941)
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.
Opinion of the Court
Defendant appealed from the judgment. There was no motion for a new trial. Our consideration is therefore limited to the sufficiency of the evidence to reasonably sustain the findings of fact and whether the conclusions of law and judgment are sustained by the findings of fact.
Plaintiff carried $3,000 insurance with defendant upon her household furniture and equipment. Most of the insured property was lost in a fire. This action was to recover therefor.
The policy provided that it should be void “if the insured shall make any attempt to defraud the company, either before or after the loss.” If the ifisured was guilty of fraud within the language of this clause she could not recover. Bahr v. Union F. Ins. Co. 167 Minn. 479, 209 N. W. 490; Claflin v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. 110 U. S. 81, 3 S. Ct. 507, 28 L. ed. 76; Columbian Ins. Co. v. Modern Laundry, Inc. (C. C. A.) 277 F. 355, 20 A. L. R. 1159.
Defendant’s contention is that plaintiff committed such fraud in an attempt to deceive the insurer by knowingly overvaluing the property destroyed or by attempting to overvalue such property. It is also claimed that plaintiff attempted to deceive defendant by listing certain property not destroyed. Upon the controlling issues there Avas strong, direct evidence accompanied by reasonable and convincing inferences that Avould have justified a conclusion either way. The solution was the problem of the trial court, which has found against the defendant. The record does not call for or warrant any interference on our part.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.