Skip to main content
· 3/31/1891

National Bank of D. O. Mills & Co. v. Union Insurance

Citations

  • 88 Cal. 497
  • 26 P. 509
  • 1891 Cal. LEXIS 723

Syllabus

<p>Insurance—Recital in Policy — Lease of Premises — Warranty — Unintentional Misstatement. — A recital in an insurance policy that “it is understood and agreed that the within-described premises have been leased ” by certain parties named will not he held to be an express warranty, where it appears that the property had formerly been leased to the parties named, although not then so leased, and that there was no intentional misstatement by the assured, if by another provision of the policy it was to become void only in case of an intentional misstatement or concealment of a material fact.</p> <p>Id.—Express Warranty—Construction in Favor of Assured.— Where there is any doubt as to whether a statement in an insurance policy is an express warranty, the court should lean against that construction which imposes upon the assured the obligation of a warranty.</p> <p>Id.—Statement of Fact — Intention of Parties.—Although under section 2607 of the Civil Code a statement in a policy of a matter relating to the person or thing insured, or to the risk as a fact, is an express warranty, yet if, taking the entire policy in all its terms and language, it can he seen that such was not the- intention of the- parties, the statement of fact will not be deemed an express warranty.</p> <p>Id. —Change of Possession of Insured Premises — Notice to Insurance Company — Knowledge of Mortgagee — Indorsement on Policy. — The fact that the insurance company has no notice of a change of possession of the insured premises will not invalidate the insurance as to a mortgagee who is not aware of the change, if an indorsement on the policy provides that the mortgagee shall become payee to the extent of the mortgage, and shall not he affected by the acts or negligence of the mortgagor, but must notify the insurance company of any change in title or possession of the property whenever he shall become aware thereof.</p> <p>Id.— Rights of Mortgagee — Effect of Sale under Foreclosure. — A mortgagee of i

How courts have described this case

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

  • “Hindsight has no place in an assessment of the effectiveness of trial counsel. . . . Nor will speculation support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.”
  • trial counsel not ineffective for failing to object to witness testimony recounting defendant’s statements about killing African Americans, as the evidence was admissible to show defendant’s racial animus and possible motive for killing the African- American victim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Foote

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.