Cunningham v. Connecticut Fire Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting formation of oral insurance contract because facts did not sufficiently show “meeting of minds” as to all “essential elements”
• “nor can it be argued that there may not be a valid contract of insurance resting only in parol”
• “nor can it be argued that there may not be a valid contract of insurance resting only in parol”
• action on “parol” contracts of insurance which, although court found they were never made, court considered facts including the conduct that defendant’s agent was to write the policies and plaintiff was to receive them

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).