Skip to main content

Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Stucco Sys., LLC

S.D. Ill.January 25, 2018No. 17 Civ. 7936Cited 15 times
UnresolvableStucco Sys., LLC

Case Details

Status
Published
Procedural Posture
7th Circuit, Illinois Southern District
Circuit
7th Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Insurance dispute case between National Union Fire Insurance and Stucco Systems, LLC. Case details regarding the specific outcome are not provided in the available snippet.

Similar Rulings

Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. National Union Fire Insurance
NYMay 2013
Mixed Result
Wellpoint, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co.
Ind. Ct. App.Jul 2011
Mixed Result
Stryker Corporation v. National Union Fire Insurance
6th CircuitJun 2012
Mixed Result
Walton
Unknown CourtOct 1889

<p>Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made the second Monday of February, 1886, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, entered upon a verdict, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.</p> <p>This action was brought upon a policy of insurance issued by the defendant, to recover the sum of $500 for loss sustained by the burning of a barn, a quantity of hay and grain and two horses, covered by the policy.</p> <p>Said policy contained the following condition: “ If the said property be sold or conveyed, or if the interest of the parties. therein be changed in any manner, whether by the act of the parties or by operation of law, * * * then, and in every such case and. in either of said events, this policy shall be null and void, until the written consent of the company at the home office is obtained.”</p> <p>At the time of the application for, and issuance of the policy, William T. Walton was the owner of the premises insured. About five months thereafter he conveyed said property to a third person, who, on the same day, duly conveyed the same to Eliza D. Walton, the wife of William. ¡Notice of these transfers was never given to the defendant, neither was the written consent of the company at the home -office obtained. William T. Walton, against the objection of the defendant, testified that he told the agent, at the time the application for insurance was made, that as soon as he had finished repairing the buildings he should convey the property to his wife, and that he wanted a policy so made out as to cover his interest now and the interest of his wife after conveyance made. That the agent replied that he could accomplish that result by making the policy out to William T. Walton and wife. It was thereupon arranged that such a policy should be applied for, and he signed an application to the company. 'The evidence was duly objected to by the defendant and an exce

Plaintiff Win
Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC v. Starr Surplus Lines Insurance
C.D. Cal.Feb 2015
Mixed Result

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.