US Fire Ins. Co. v. Roberts

How courts have described this case

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

• “As can be seen from the 1983 version, there is no express statement that the coinsurance clause is null and void if the requisite statement is not stamped on the face of the policy.”
• the statute used to state “any such clause or provision shall be null and void, and of no effect unless” the required statement was on the face of the policy or in an attachment
• fire policy’s coinsurance clause was void for failure of policy to include statement, either printed or stamped on face of policy, to effect that rate charged in policy was based on use of coinsurance clause, as required by statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).