Date of this Version
NEBRASKA LAW REVIEW 70 (1991), pp. 229-264
Why, then, treat Fairbank as noteworthy today, even in an issue of the Nebraska Law Review celebrating the centennial of the College of Law? A lawyer reading the Fairbank opinion in conjunction with the Nebraska Supreme Court's most recent ventures into the world of postloss insurance conditions--in the First Security cases--likely would conclude that little of legal significance had changed. True, quite different sorts of oxen were being gored by quite different sorts of ill winds, but the failure to file timely proofs of loss apparently was as fatal to the First Security claims as it had been to the Fairbank claim, and apparently for the same reasons. And therein lies our tale. What makes Fairbank noteworthy today is that its treatment of postloss insurance conditions looks so normal-so unnoteworthy-to modern eyes, despite a century of change in both insurance practice and insurance law, and increasing ferment concerning the appropriate treatment of postloss conditions.