Court Opinion

ID: 9681655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:53:55.425233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:35.067502
License: Public Domain

BRADY, Judge
(concurring).
While I concur in the majority opinion, the result reached is such that I deem it necessary to emphasize that concurrence is conditioned upon my understanding of the opinion in the light of what here follows.
The insured was not made a party to this action. The proof of loss which is in evidence in this case contained the statement that there was no other insurance. Plaintiff had a right to rely upon this statement made by its insured. It follows that plaintiff has paid the entire loss on this claim under either (1) a mutual mistake of fact as to the existence of the other policy, or (2) a fraudulent statement by its insured.
By this opinion we in no way rule upon or foreclose: (a) plaintiff’s right of action to recover the excess paid by it from the insured; or (b) insured’s right to cross-claim against Farmers in the event plaintiff brings an action against the insured; or (c) Farmers’ right to assert any policy defenses to the insured’s cross-claim.