Whether person P or person D should prevail.

Question

Peter Andrus owned an apartment building that he had insured under a fire insurance policy sold by J.C. Durick Insurance (Durick). Two months prior to the expiration of the policy, Durick notified Andrus that the building should be insured for $48,000 (or 80 percent of the building’s value), as required by the insurance company. Andrus replied that (1) he wanted insurance to match the amount of the outstanding mortgage on the building (i.e., $24,000) and (2) if Durick could not sell this insurance, he would go elsewhere. Durick sent a new insurance policy in the face amount of $48,000 with the notation that the policy was automatically accepted unless Andrus notified him to the contrary. Andrus did not reply. However, he did not pay the premiums on the policy. Durick sued Andrus to recover these premiums. Discuss who wins? Provide justification for your argument/position.

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 48, Problem 10CP

Summary Introduction

To discuss: Whether person P or person D should prevail.

Expert Solution & Answer

Trending nowThis is a popular solution!

See solution

Check out sample textbook solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Peter Andrus owned an apartment building that he had insured under a fire insurance policy sold by J.C. Durick Insurance (Durick). Two months prior to the expiration of the policy, Durick notified Andrus that the building should be insured for $48,000 (or 80 percent of the building’s value), as required by the insurance company. Andrus replied that (1) he wanted insurance to match the amount of the outstanding mortgage on the building (i.e., $24,000) and (2) if Durick could not sell this insurance, he would go elsewhere. Durick sent a new insurance policy in the face amount of $48,000 with the notation that the policy was automatically accepted unless Andrus notified him to the contrary. Andrus did not reply. However, he did not pay the premiums on the policy. Durick sued Andrus to recover these premiums. Discuss who wins? Provide justification for your argument/position.

Lane rented a house from Kent. Lane installed a new refrigerator in the kitchen. At the end of the lease term, Lane wishes to remove the refrigerator. May she do so?

On June 5, 2000, DP delivered possession of his house and lot in the Poblacion of Polo, Bulacan to AB who, in turn delivered to the former possession of his 2-hectare rice land. Both properties were unregistered. They executed a document entitled “Barter” which, among others, provided that both parties shall enjoy the material possession of their respective properties; that neither party shall encumber, alienate or dispose of their respective properties as bartered without the consent of the other; and that DP shall be obliged to return the property to AB when the latter’s son shall attain majority and decide to return DP’s property. After AB’s death and his son S attained majority in 2017, the latter demanded for the return of the two (2) hectares of rice land which had then increased tremendously in value. DP refused and so S filed an action for recovery of the land. Will the action prosper? Why?