This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P was insured and alleged that he suffered losses as a result of unspecified conduct by an assistant vice-president. D contends that P discovered the losses in May 1966 but failed to give prompt written notice of loss and proof of claim as required by the insurer's bond. P notified D of possible losses in October 1966 and filed proof of claim in November. D objected to certain interrogatories which asked D to define dishonest act and fraudulent act and to state if certain specific acts are dishonest and fraudulent. D objected in that these asked for legal opinions.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.