Preview:

Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Herbert Himelfarb et al., No. 144, September Term, 1998.

[Property Insurance - Theft - Proof of Loss. Policy provided that proof of loss be submitted within sixty days of request. Held: Substantial compliance suffices as to time limit element of provision.]

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case # 97057056/CL224031

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 144 September Term, 1998 _________________________________________

HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

v.

HERBERT HIMELFARB et al. _________________________________________ Bell, C.J. Eldridge Rodowsky Raker Wilner Cathell Karwacki, Robert L. (retired, specially assigned), JJ. _________________________________________ Opinion by Rodowsky, J. _________________________________________ Filed: August 30, 1999

This is an action under a commercial property policy by insureds against the insurer to recover for loss due to theft. The sole issue before us is whether the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment for the insurer based on the insurer's contention that the insured had failed to comply with the sixty day time limit on filing a proof of loss that is provided by

Download Hartford Fire v. Himelfarb.pdf

Maryland Law