Skip to main content
· 2/10/1917

Crandon v. Home Insurance

Citations

  • 99 Kan. 785
  • 163 P. 458

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Fire Insurance — Merchandise—“Fireproof Safe” Clause — Provision Valid. Where a fire insurance policy covering a business building and a stock of merchandise contains a clause reciting that the assured agrees to make an annual inventory and to keep a set of books showing a complete record of the business transacted, including purchases, sales and shipments, and that such inventory .and books shall be securely locked in a fireproof safe at night and at all times when the store is not open for business, and that on a failure to produce such inventory and books for the inspection of the company the policy “shall become null and void, and such failure shall constitute a perpetual bar to any recovery thereon,” a failure to keep such inventory and books in a fireproof safe at night whereby they are destroyed by fire will ordinarily bar a recovery on the insurance policy.</p> <p>2. Same — “Fireproof Safe” Clause — Waiver. Where a fire loss occurs under the circumstances suggested in syllabus 1, the insurance company does not waive the “fireproof safe” clause by inviting the assured to meet defendant’s adjuster in a town ten miles away for the purpose of settlement, nor by offering to pay 50 per cent of the loss notwithstanding the breach of the “fireproof safe” clause of the policy, nor by retaining the entire premium which had been paid to insure both the store building and the merchandise, there being no dispute about the insurance company’s liability for the insurance on the building.</p> <p>3. Appeal — Technical Points„ Disregarded. Technical objections not affecting substantial rights examined and overruled under section 581 of the civil code.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • concluding postnuptial agreement to effectuate future separation was void as against public policy when the couple was “living and cohabiting together” at the time of the agreement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Dawson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.