FORD v. NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK

FORD v. NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK
1962 OK 71
371 P.2d 95
Case Number: 39472
Decided: 03/20/1962
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

PAUL H. FORD AND ERMA LORENE FORD, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
NORTHERN
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK AND QUEEN INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
DEFENDANTS IN ERROR.

 Syllabus

¶0 The cancellation clause of an insurerance policy covering loss of personal property of others while in possession of assured, to effect that policy may be cancelled by assured mailing to insurer 'written notice stating when thereafter such cancellation may be effective', is complied with and the insurance is cancelled as of date insurer received assured's written notice that assured has acquired new insurance covering the same risk and therefore wishes to cancel his policy with insurer.

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Tulsa County; C.E. Allen, Judge.

Action by Fords (plaintiffs below) to recover loss sustained which allegedly was either covered by insurance policy issued by Northern Insurance Company or one issued by Queen Insurance Company, which policies covered the same risk. From judgment for Queen Insurance Company, Fords appeal. Affirmed.

Rosenstein, Mesirow & Fist, Tulsa, for plaintiffs in error Paul H. Ford and Erma Lorene Ford.

J.C. Pinkerton, James C. Pinkerton, Tulsa, for defendant in error Northern Ins. Co. of New York.

E.J. Doerner and Philip N. Landa, Tulsa, for defendant in error Queen Ins. Co. of America.

BERRY, Justice.

¶1 This is a companion case to Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Paul H. Ford et al., No. 39,471, which was this day decided. The case is reported in 371 P.2d 92.

¶2 The parties to this appeal will be referred to as in our opinion in No. 39,471.

¶3 The plaintiffs' position in the instant case is that they were entitled to judgment against either Northern or Queen; that while they are of the opinion that the trial court did not err in rendering judgment against Northern and not Queen, possibility existed that this Court might hold otherwise in No. 39,471 and for said reason they preserved their claim and action against Queen by perfecting this appeal.

¶4 The facts and issues presented by this case are the same as those presented in No. 39,471. Our opinion in said case is therefore adopted as our opinion herein.

¶5 Affirmed.

¶6 WILLIAMS, C.J., BLACKBIRD, V.C.J., and HALLEY, JOHNSON, JACKSON and IRWIN, JJ., concur.