Justry v. Northern Insurance
Opinion of the Court
In this action on the defendant’s policy of burglary insurance, the defendant moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, as recently amended. The automobile in question was stolen from the plaintiff on June 5, 1933. It was found shortly thereafter in a completely demolished condition. In his contract of insurance the plaintiff warranted, not merely represented, that the automobile was new when he purchased it in December, 1930, and that he had paid the sum of $4,250 for it. In the proof of loss filed by him with the defendant, he made warranties identical with those he had previously made in his contract of insurance. These warranties were obviously material. Yet from the papers before me it appears conclusively that the plaintiff purchased the automobile for $1,650 in February, 1931, and that it was not new at all, but had already been used considerably. In my opinion, no more evidence of any importance could be adduced by either party upon a trial of this action. I am not unmindful of the
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.