Sardo v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.
Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey
100 N.J. Eq. 332; 134 A. 774 (1926)
- Written by Matt Fyock, JD
Facts
Sardo (plaintiff) desired to obtain insurance against theft of the jewelry in his store. Sardo visited Fidelity & Deposit Co. (Fidelity’s) (defendant) agent, who told Sardo that the agent had authority only to issue policies covering burglary and that he would speak with Fidelity about finding a policy suited to Sardo’s needs. Fidelity issued a policy covering “money and securities” but not jewelry. Sardo did not read the policy but, as he had applied for a policy covering jewelry, assumed it covered jewelry. Sardo brought suit when his store was robbed and Fidelity refused coverage. The trial court ruled that since Fidelity’s agent had knowledge that there were no securities in Sardo’s store that Sardo was entitled to have the contract reformed to substitute “jewelry” for “securities.” Fidelity appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kays, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 791,000 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.
