Siegel v. Ohio Millers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. Gipps Brewing Corp. v. Cent. MFRS' Mut. Ins. Co.

    147 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1945)   Cited 26 times
    In Gipps Brewing Corp. v. Central Mfrs'. Mut. Ins. Co., (147 F.2d 6), where the facts were quite similar to those presented here, the court said (p. 12) "That the questions were proper and material, we think there can be no doubt".

    A failure to comply with these provisions has also been held to work a forfeiture. Oshkosh Match Works v. Manchester Fire Assurance Co., 92 Wis. 510, 66 N.W. 525; Thornton v. Security Insurance Co., C.C. Pa., 117 F. 773; Siegel v. Ohio Millers Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 8 Cir., 29 F.2d 988. In the Oshkosh case, the facts are quite similar to those of the instant case.

  2. Kugler v. Phila. Fire Marine Ins. Co.

    105 F. Supp. 158 (E.D. La. 1952)   Cited 3 times

    This action on the part of the insurer was an exercise of its option not to repair the premises itself but to pay the plaintiff his damages so that the plaintiff could repair them. Siegel v. Ohio Millers' Mut. Fire Insurance Co., 8 Cir., 29 F.2d 988; Coulson v. Walton, 9 Pet. 62, 9 L.Ed. 51; Morrell v. Irving Fire Insurance Co., 33 N.Y. 429; Globe Rutgers Fire Insurance Company v. Green, 167 Miss. 698, 146 So. 889. At this time the option period ceased to run, the option having been exercised.

  3. Hibbs v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    193 Cal.App.4th 809 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 9 times

    They argue, however, that as Allstate's adjuster, Baker had the authority to settle their claims by choosing to pay them instead of having the van repaired. (Citing Seigel v. Ohio Millers' Mutual Fire Ins. Co. (8th Cir. 1928) 29 F.2d 988, 992.) But telling Harry he had the "unconditional right" to payment, refers to rights under the policy, not simply to a choice among options for settling his claim.

  4. Hibbs v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    192 Cal.App.4th 1339 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)

    They argue, however, that as Allstate's adjuster, Baker had the authority to settle their claims by choosing to pay them instead of having the van repaired. (Citing Seigel v. Ohio Millers' Mutual Fire Ins. Co. (8th Cir. 1928) 29 F.2d 988, 992.) But telling Harry he had the "unconditional right" to payment, refers to rights under the policy, not simply to a choice among options for settling his claim.