Skip to main content
· 8/6/1910

Port Blakely Mill Co. v. Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance

Citations

  • 59 Wash. 501
  • 110 P. 36
  • 1910 Wash. LEXIS 1231

Syllabus

<p>Corporations — Foreign Corporations — Actions—Doing Business In State. A foreign corporation, to which a policy of fire insurance is made payable in case of loss, may maintain an action on the policy without having paid an annual license fee or otherwise complied with the laws relating to the doing of business in this state by foreign corporations.</p> <p>Insurance — Fire Insurance — Policy—Warranties — Sprinkler System — Temporary Suspension. The temporary violation of a “sprinkler” clause in a fire insurance policy, whereby it was “warranted” that due diligence be used that the automatic sprinkler system shall at all times be in good working order, does not prevent a recovery on the policy, where such temporary suspension of the working order of the system was not in existence at the time of the fire and the damages were not the result of the breach.</p> <p>Same — Policy—^Construction—“Warranty”—Use oe Word. A policy of insurance is to be construed in the light of the intent of the parties, and the use of the word “warranted” adds nothing to the force of a stipulation that does not necessarily constitute a warranty; especially in view of the rule that the courts should, in case of any doubt, lean against any construction that imposes upon the assured the obligation of a warranty or where it would work a forfeiture, unless it plainly appears that such was the intention.</p> <p>Same — Policy—Construction—Sprinkler Clause. A “sprinkler” clause in a fire insurance policy whereby the assured “warranted” that due diligence be used that the automatic sprinkler system shall at all times be in good working order, will not be construed to be a warranty, working a forefeiture of the policy for its temporary violation at a time other than when the loss occurred, where the policy expressly provided that for the violation of several other stipulations on the part of the assured the policy should be void and immediately cease, and made no such provision in connection with the

How courts have described this case

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

  • explaining that if a proffered instruction on a central issue is supported by the evidence but misstates applicable law, it is the “ultimate responsibility” of the trial judge “to reform and correct the proffered instruction”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Dunbar, Morris

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.