iron-safe clause (Kentucky) · Go Syfert
← Kentucky issues

iron-safe clause in Kentucky

5 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 1918–1951 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Kentucky courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

CaseCitedYears
World Fire Marine Ins. Co. v. Tapp neutral
kyctapphigh · 1939
2 sentences

1951This Court, after reversing a long line of decisions holding the iron safe clause unenforceable in Kentucky, first recognized the clause as a valid controlling stipulation in the case of World Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Tapp, 279 Ky. 432 , 130 S.W.2d 848, 852 , but we placed this limitation upon its application: “The provision is subject, however, to a fair and reasonable interpretation and to the demand that a fair and substantial compliance therewith shall be sufficient.” The Tapp case is followed and cited with approval in the later opinion of Watkins v. California Insurance Co., 296 Ky

1944In World Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Tapp, 279 Ky. 423 , 130 S. W. (2d) 848, 851 , this court, contrary to its previous rulings, held that the iron safe clause, common to most fire insurance policies covering merchandise, is a valid contractual stipulation.

21944–1951
Mabe v. Commonwealth green
kyctapphigh · 1939
1 sentence

1951This Court, after reversing a long line of decisions holding the iron safe clause unenforceable in Kentucky, first recognized the clause as a valid controlling stipulation in the case of World Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Tapp, 279 Ky. 432 , 130 S.W.2d 848, 852 , but we placed this limitation upon its application: “The provision is subject, however, to a fair and reasonable interpretation and to the demand that a fair and substantial compliance therewith shall be sufficient.” The Tapp case is followed and cited with approval in the later opinion of Watkins v. California Insurance Co., 296 Ky

11951–1951
Watkins v. California Ins. Co. of San Francisco, Inc. neutral
kyctapphigh · 1944
2 sentences

1951This Court, after reversing a long line of decisions holding the iron safe clause unenforceable in Kentucky, first recognized the clause as a valid controlling stipulation in the case of World Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Tapp, 279 Ky. 432 , 130 S.W.2d 848, 852 , but we placed this limitation upon its application: “The provision is subject, however, to a fair and reasonable interpretation and to the demand that a fair and substantial compliance therewith shall be sufficient.” The Tapp case is followed and cited with approval in the later opinion of Watkins v. California Insurance Co., 296 Ky

1951This Court, after reversing a long line of decisions holding the iron safe clause unenforceable in Kentucky, first recognized the clause as a valid controlling stipulation in the case of World Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Tapp, 279 Ky. 432 , 130 S.W.2d 848, 852 , but we placed this limitation upon its application: “The provision is subject, however, to a fair and reasonable interpretation and to the demand that a fair and substantial compliance therewith shall be sufficient.” The Tapp case is followed and cited with approval in the later opinion of Watkins v. California Insurance Co., 296 Ky

11951–1951
Fidelity-Phoenix Fire Insurance Co. v. Hyden neutral
kyctapphigh · 1928
1 sentence

1928The circuit court, as a matter of course, will take such action as may be necessary to protect the parties to this suit and the rights of the attaching creditors. *347 Argument is again advanced that the iron-safe clause in the policy of insurance should be held valid, but we have disposed of that question in the case of Fidelity-Phoenix Fire Insurance Co. v. Hyden (Ky.) 10 S.W.(2d) 829 , 226 Ky. 346 .

11928–1928
Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance v. Shapoff neutral
kyctapp · 1918
1 sentence

1928The next case from this court is Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Shapoff, 179 Ky. 804 , 201 S. W. 1116 .

11928–1928
Ætna Insurance v. Mount green
miss · 1907
1 sentence

1918Among the cases are: Aetna Insurance Co. v. Mount, 90 Miss. 642 ; Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Dorsey, 102 Miss. 81 ; Insurance Company v. Bourgeois, 105 Miss. 698 ; Penix v. American Central Insurance Company, 106 Miss. 145 .

11918–1918
Phenix Insurance v. Dorsey neutral
miss · 1912
1 sentence

1918Among the cases are: Aetna Insurance Co. v. Mount, 90 Miss. 642 ; Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Dorsey, 102 Miss. 81 ; Insurance Company v. Bourgeois, 105 Miss. 698 ; Penix v. American Central Insurance Company, 106 Miss. 145 .

11918–1918
Phoenix Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Bourgeois neutral
miss · 1913
1 sentence

1918Among the cases are: Aetna Insurance Co. v. Mount, 90 Miss. 642 ; Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Dorsey, 102 Miss. 81 ; Insurance Company v. Bourgeois, 105 Miss. 698 ; Penix v. American Central Insurance Company, 106 Miss. 145 .

11918–1918
Penix v. American Central Ins. neutral
· 1913
1 sentence

1918Among the cases are: Aetna Insurance Co. v. Mount, 90 Miss. 642 ; Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Dorsey, 102 Miss. 81 ; Insurance Company v. Bourgeois, 105 Miss. 698 ; Penix v. American Central Insurance Company, 106 Miss. 145 .

11918–1918

Where else courts name it

TX 9 (1887–1935) LA 9 (1919–1964) MO 7 (1906–1923) KS 5 (1909–1935) KY 5 (1918–1951) WV 4 (1925–1942) NC 4 (1907–1938) OK 4 (1916–1917) AL 3 (1928–1930) VA 3 (1905–1912) MS 2 (1955–1960) DE 2 (1916–1918) SC 2 (1914–1922) AR 2 (1909–1927) NE 2 (1908–1994) PR 2 (1926–1928)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check