Hammann v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
620 F.2d 588 (1980)
- Written by Darius Dehghan, JD
Facts
A fire occurred in a barn owned by Bruce Hammann (plaintiff). Hammann had a fire insurance policy with Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (Hartford) (defendant). Hammann brought suit against Hartford, seeking to recover under the policy for damage to the barn. Hartford contended that Hammann committed arson. Hartford sought to introduce evidence of previous fires that had occurred on Hammann’s properties. These fires resulted in insurance recoveries. The district-court judge admitted evidence of the previous fires. However, the judge instructed the jury that the previous fires were to be considered as bearing only on Hammann’s motive to commit arson. The jury ruled in favor of Hartford. Hammann appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Martin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 783,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
