Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1/4/1909

Cunningham v. Connecticut Fire Insurance

Citations

200 Mass. 333
86 N.E. 787
1909 Mass. LEXIS 991

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).

Judges: Rugg

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.