Skip to main content
· 7/12/1920

National Union Fire Insurance v. Cone

Citations

  • 80 Fla. 265
  • 85 So. 913

Syllabus

<p>1. The provisions in a standard fire insurance policy requiring the insured to notify the company in writing of the loss and to furnish proof of such loss are conditions precedent to the right to sue, hut the failure to comply with said provisions promptly does not invalidate the policy or work a forfeiture of the rights of the insured in the absence of a stipulation to that effect.</p> <p>2. An objection to the introduction in evidence of the original fire insurance policy sued on because of variance between the names of the persons signing as president and secretary as shown by said original policy and the copy attached to the declaration was properly overruled when the court was unable to distinguish from the signatures whether they were the same or not and when the company’s agent who issued the policy and whose name was properly given in the copy, identified the policy as the one signed by him and delivered to the plaintiff covering the property in question.</p> <p>3. A motion to strike testimony must not be too broad. If it includes any proper testimony it should be denied.</p> <p>4. Where a question propounded to a witness is not shown by the record to have been answered, an assignment of error based on an objection thereto must fail.</p> <p>5. A question of fact upon which the evidence conflicts is peculiarly within the province of the jury to decide.</p> <p>6. Where a fire insurance policy provides that loss shall not be payable until sixty days after the proof of loss has been furnished, interest on the amount due does not run prior to said time.</p> <p>7. Where a motion for a new trial is sufficient to direct the attention of the trial court to harmful error in the general charge given, such error should be corrected.</p> <p>8. The courts should exercise care and caution in decreeing attorney's fees to the end that only reasonable fees for services rendered be allowed, but where a cause is brought to an appellate court, not to have the amount allowed f

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting “[b]ecause the Appellants’ statement of facts violates Rule 84.04(c), this Court is justified in dismissing this appeal on this basis.”
  • noting “[b]ecause the Appellants’ statement of facts violates Rule 84.04(c), this Court is justified in dismissing this appeal on this basis.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Browne, Ellis, Reaves, Taylor, West, Whitfield

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.