INSURANCE - ESTOPPEL - PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

Authors

Abstract

The plaintiff sued on a fire policy. The insurer defended on the ground that plaintiff had violated a condition of the policy which provided that there would be no liability if loss occurred while the property was encumbered by a chattel mortgage, unless the company's written consent thereto was endorsed on the policy. Plaintiff sought to estop the defendant as to this defense because of insurer's agent's assurances, given before and after the issuance of the policy, that the policy would permit him to encumber the goods. Held, defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's replication should be sustained because of plaintiff's failure to allege facts sufficient to raise an estoppel. Bitting v. Home Insurance Co. (Md. 1931) 155 Atl. 329.

Recommended Citation

INSURANCE - ESTOPPEL - PAROL EVIDENCE RULE, 30 Mich. L. Rev. 311 (1931).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol30/iss2/28