250 N.W. 73 | Minn. | 1933
June 19, 1930, plaintiff's house and household goods were destroyed by fire. Her property was insured with the defendant. She made claim under her policies, and it was rejected. The defendant settled with her mortgagee, and she sought to have her attorney bring suit, which he finally did on June 9, 1932, by serving upon the insurance commissioner. An answer was interposed, but plaintiff was apparently unable to get her attorney to move and engaged another firm of lawyers, who brought suit and at the same time served a notice of dismissal of the former action. The insurance policies sued upon contained a provision that suit must be brought within two years of the loss. Apparently the plaintiff and her attorneys were not aware of this provision in the policies and did not know that plaintiff's rights had been prejudiced by the dismissal of her action which was brought within the period provided for in the policies. Upon the plaintiff's motion, the trial court set aside the dismissal of the first action. From its order this appeal is taken.
As we view the case it is controlled by Macknick v. Switchmen's Union of North America,
The order appealed from is affirmed.