Clark v. Farmers Mutual Fire Ins. Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. Kvale v. Farmers Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

    202 N.W. 491 (Minn. 1925)

    Cancelation of policy in township mutual fire insurance company. Following Illett v. North Star F.M. Ins. Co. 156 Minn. 128, and Clark v. Rochester F.M.F. Ins. Co. 161 Minn. 476, 201 N.W. 930, it is held that the mere failure to pay an assessment levied against a member of a township mutual fire insurance company does not terminate the contract of insurance, and that to defeat a recovery the policy must be canceled. *Headnote.

  2. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co. v. Glass Service Co.

    683 N.W.2d 792 (Minn. 2004)   Cited 147 times
    Holding that the No-Fault Act deprives district courts of subject matter jurisdiction over claims for comprehensive benefits under $10,000

    The business of insurance is quasi public in character; hence, it is competent for the state, in the exercise of the police power, to regulate it for the protection of the public." Clark v. Rochester Farmers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 161 Minn. 476, 479, 201 N.W. 930, 931-32 (1925). If a term in an insurance contract conflicts with Minnesota statutes, the contract term becomes unenforceable. Streich v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 358 N.W.2d 396, 399 (Minn.

  3. Shank v. Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Co.

    221 Minn. 124 (Minn. 1945)   Cited 9 times
    In Shank v. Fidelity and Mutual Life Ins. Co. 221 Minn. 124, 21 N.W.2d 235, 238, the court quoted with approval from 29 Am Jur (Insurance Sec 190) 206, as follows: "... where there is a conflict between the law and statutory provisions on the one hand and the provisions of an insurance policy on the other, the former must prevail."

    "* * * If there is no statute governing the form and content of the policy, the parties are free to incorporate such provisions and conditions as they desire, Juster v. John Hancock Mut. L. Ins. Co. 194 Minn. 382, 260 N.W. 493, subject only to such restrictions of law as are other parties to a voluntary contract." In Clark v. Rochester Farmers Mut. F. Ins. Co. 161 Minn. 476, 479, 201 N.W. 930, 931, this statement is made: "Although a policy of insurance is a contract, it does not stand on the same footing as ordinary contracts.

  4. De Vries v. Spring Valley Tp. Mut. F. Ins. Co.

    209 N.W. 325 (Minn. 1926)

    On July 23, 1924, the plaintiff sustained a fire loss of $405 on his farm property. He had an effective policy in the defendant company unless forfeited by nonpayment of an assessment due June 5, 1924; and the fact of forfeiture depends upon whether a notice of assessment had been mailed him by the company 30 days prior thereto. It is conceded, if we understand counsel, that under the by-laws the mailing of the notice was the one requisite, the receipt immaterial, and that if the notice was mailed forfeiture resulted from nonpayment, wherein Clark v. Rochester F.M.F. Ins. Co. 161 Minn. 476, 201 N.W. 930, and cases there cited, are distinguished. The notice of course must have been a properly addressed notice and actually mailed. The secretary of the insurance company, who lived a short distance out of Spring Valley, testifies that he mailed the notice.