Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Wager v. Providence Insurance Company.

• 1893 • 150 U.S. 99 • Fuller Court
In the 1893 case Wager v. Providence Insurance Company, the US Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an insurance claim for a ship that had been destroyed by fire. The owner of the ship, Mr. Wager, filed a claim with his insurer, Providence Insurance Company but was denied payment because he did not comply with certain conditions in his policy contract requiring him to provide specific documents and proofs within sixty days after notice of loss. The court held that these requirements were...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Fuller Court
Term: 1893
Docket: 41
150 U.S. 99
14 S. Ct. 55
37 L. Ed. 1013
1893 U.S. LEXIS 2360
Argued: Oct 18, 1893

Wager v. Providence Insurance Company.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1893 case Wager v. Providence Insurance Company, the US Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an insurance claim for a ship that had been destroyed by fire. The owner of the ship, Mr. Wager, filed a claim with his insurer, Providence Insurance Company but was denied payment because he did not comply with certain conditions in his policy contract requiring him to provide specific documents and proofs within sixty days after notice of loss. The court held that these requirements were reasonable and enforceable as they allowed insurers to investigate claims thoroughly before paying out any money. The decision established important principles regarding insurance contracts: firstly, it confirmed that insurers could impose reasonable conditions on their policies; secondly, it emphasized the importance of adhering strictly to those terms if policyholders wanted their claims paid; thirdly and most importantly from an industry perspective - it underscored how crucial accurate information is when assessing risk and determining premiums. This ruling has influenced subsequent decisions related to similar issues in insurance law since then.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the Wager v. Providence Insurance Company case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of the insurance company, was incorrect. The dissent contended that there were significant errors made during trial proceedings and these should have been grounds for reversal. They believed that evidence presented by Mr. Wager regarding his financial losses due to a fire at his property had not been properly considered or evaluated by the jury because of misleading instructions given by the judge about how such evidence should be assessed. Furthermore, they disagreed with how damages were calculated based on an erroneous interpretation of policy terms related to depreciation value and actual cash value of destroyed items rather than their replacement cost as intended under contract law principles applicable at that time.

Opinion written by Justice GShiras
Decided: Nov 06, 1893
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms