# Klein v. Century Lloyds

> Texas Supreme Court · January 12, 1955 · 154 Tex. 160

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9770929

## Case

- **Full name:** Howard Klein Et Al v. Century Lloyds
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 12, 1955
- **Citations:** 154 Tex. 160; 275 S.W.2d 95; 1955 Tex. LEXIS 549
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Culver
- **Judges:** Hickman, Smith, Wilson, Culver
- **Cited by:** 93 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9770929

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that policy holder failed to give reasonable notice to the insurer of a claim against him as a matter of law where he waited thirty- two days to give notice because the insured did not testify and there was no evidence he was unable to give notice due to physical or me…
- holding that, as a matter of law, a thirty-two-day delay in notice was not "as soon as practicable”

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Culver,
dissenting, on rehearing.
I concur with the dissent in this case and am therefore of the opinion that the motion for rehearing should be granted.
The Company received notice of this accident within two or three days after its occurrence from other sources. I think then that the finding of the jury, to the effect that the written notice given by the insured approximately thirty days thereafter, was within a reasonable time, is not wholly unsupported by the evidence.
The purpose of the provision in the policy that written notice should be given by or on behalf of the insured as soon as practicable, is obviously for the sole purpose of enabling the Company to proceed with a timely investigation and this the Company did.
In New Amsterdam Casualty Company v. Hamblen, 144 *174 Texas 306 , 190 S.W. 2d 56 , cited by the majority, the facts differed materially from others in our case. The accident occurred on February 13th. Suit was filed on August 4th. The Company had no notice either of the claim or of the suit until the receipt of a letter from the assured on March 8th of the following year, some seven months after the filing of the suit. I do not think, therefore, it is necessarily decisive of the case here.
Opinion delivered February 23, 1955.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9770929. Public record. Not legal advice.