Insurance Law Cases (Solved) 100% Correct
Insurance Law Cases (Solved) 100% Correct Vlastos v. Sumitomo Marine & Fire Insurance Company - breach of warranty Facts: Vlastos obtained fire insurance from the D. The policy stated in part: "Warranted that the 3rd floor is occupied as Janitor's residence." After the building was destroyed by fire, D refused to pay the claim citing breach of warranty because a massage parlor was also on the third floor with the janitor. 3 people were killed. - correct answer Holding: AMBIGUITY: a reasonable person could have understood Vlastos to have warranted merely that her janitor lived on the third floor. Held that Vlastos warranted only that a janitor resided on the third floor, not that there was no other occupancy of the floor. Endorsement No. 4 is NOT a representation, but a warranty. However, the warranty is ambiguous so doctrine of contra proferentum applies. Vlastos did NOT ambiguously warrant that her janitor alone occupy the 3rd floor.
Document information
- Uploaded on
- October 12, 2023
- Number of pages
- 33
- Written in
- 2023/2024
- Type
- Exam (elaborations)
- Contains
- Questions & answers
