Globe Discount, c., Corp. v. N. Jersey Ins. Co.

3 Citing cases

  1. Federal Insurance Co. v. P.K. Carrier Corp.

    02 Civ. 10086 (RJH) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2007)

    Even under a strict and narrow interpretation, the operation of a vehicle without proper authorization constitutes illicit transportation. See Globe Discount Finance Corp. v. New Jersey Insurance Co., 199 N.E. 923 (Mass. 1936) (damage while operating unregistered vehicle on public road was not covered by policy excluding damage while automobile was "used in any illicit or prohibited trade or transportation."). It is inconsequential that the truck was not involved in "illicit trade" as the policy also has an exclusion for "illicit . . . transportation."

  2. Gechijian v. Richmond Ins. Co.

    305 Mass. 132 (Mass. 1940)   Cited 26 times
    In Gechijian the expert arrived at his conclusion by examining the premises and eliminating incendiarism as a possible cause, the court allowing him to testify that he "did not observe anything that indicated to him that the fire was set."

    The plaintiff's intent in preparing and submitting to the defendants a list of the damaged property together with figures denoting its value, but omitting to state the amount of loss, was a question of fact for the jury to determine upon all the evidence. Commonwealth v. Walker, 108 Mass. 309. Commonwealth v. Althause, 207 Mass. 32. Globe Discount Finance Corp. v. New Jersey Ins. Co. 293 Mass. 267. Berry v. Kyes, 304 Mass. 56, 60. If the statement of value as submitted by the plaintiff was found to be false that fact alone would not bar recovery. An insured is not bound at his peril to submit as the amount of his loss a figure no higher than the amount of loss as finally determined.

  3. Capano v. Melchionno

    297 Mass. 1 (Mass. 1937)   Cited 46 times

    LaFucci v. Palladino, 285 Mass. 240, 242, 243. Globe Discount Finance Corp. v. New Jersey Ins. Co. 293 Mass. 267. There was no error in the instructions touching the subject of registration of the motor truck.