From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mason v. Agriculture Ins. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Nov 5, 1959
21 Misc. 2d 263 (N.Y. App. Term 1959)

Summary

In Mason v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 150 Mo. App. 17, 129 S.W. 472, it was held that an effort of the parties to agree upon the amount of loss and avoid the necessity of an appraisement, leaving the question of liability open, was not inadmissible as an offer of compromise.

Summary of this case from Jacobs v. Danciger

Opinion

November 5, 1959

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, MAXWELL SHAPIRO, J.

Zipser Levitt ( Sidney N. Zipser and Howard E. Levitt of counsel), for appellants.

No one appearing for respondent.


The record below established plaintiff's failure to comply with the condition precedent set forth in the insurance contract in that she failed to file required proofs of loss and failed to institute this action within one year from the time her cause of action accrued. Plaintiff's opposing papers failed to negate her breach and raised no triable issues of fact in respect thereof.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motion granted.

Concur — HOFSTADTER, J.P., AURELIO and TILZER, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Mason v. Agriculture Ins. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Nov 5, 1959
21 Misc. 2d 263 (N.Y. App. Term 1959)

In Mason v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 150 Mo. App. 17, 129 S.W. 472, it was held that an effort of the parties to agree upon the amount of loss and avoid the necessity of an appraisement, leaving the question of liability open, was not inadmissible as an offer of compromise.

Summary of this case from Jacobs v. Danciger
Case details for

Mason v. Agriculture Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:CLARA MASON, Respondent, v. AGRICULTURAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Nov 5, 1959

Citations

21 Misc. 2d 263 (N.Y. App. Term 1959)
193 N.Y.S.2d 962

Citing Cases

Jacobs v. Danciger

They were properly admitted in evidence because the clear intention of both parties was merely to ascertain…

Farber v. Boston Ins. Co.

No controversy or disagreement had arisen between the parties. It was competent as an admission of liability.…