« PreviousContinue »
Expense Rests upon Assured - Performance not Required when
Damage Trifling. The expense of putting in best possible order rests upon the insured; if this work is done by the insurance company, at express request of the insured, the expense is properly deducted from the claim under the policy for the insurance;- but putting in order is not required when the value of the property is trifling in amount, and there is no proof that its value would be improved.
1. Hebner v. Palatine Ins. Co., 157 Ill. 144, 41 N. E. Rep. 627, affg. 55 Ill. App. 275.
2. Wright v. Hartford Ins. Co., 36 Wis. 522.
Substantial Compliance Sufficient. Substantial compliance with Rule 1 is sufficient; an inventory otherwise sufficiently specific is not invalidated by the fact that it contains a few items of a collective character; as, for instance," a lot of goods in a show window," “ contents of a small show case,” “ a lot of shirt bosoms, handkerchiefs,” etc., or if unable to give cost of each article, number of articles of each kind may be given with average price.?
1. Boyle v. Hamburg-Bremen Ins. Co., 169 Pa. St. 349, 32 Atl. Rep. 553.
2. People's Fire Ins. Co. v. Pulver, 127 Ill. 246, 20 N. E. Rep. 18.
Performance not Required when Property Totally Destroyed
When not Practicable.
When property insured is totally destroyed, an inventory of each item thereof is not required; Rule 1 has reference to damaged and undamaged property, and the inventory is not required where the goods are so damaged as to render the making of the inventory not reasonably practicable;- or when there is only one article damaged.
1. Johnston v. Farmers' Ins. Co., 106 Mich. 96, 64 N. W. Rep. 5; Davis v. Grand Rapids Ins. Co., 15 Misc. 263, 36 N. Y. Sunp. 792, affd. without opinion, 157 N. Y. 685.
2. Powers Dry Goods Co. v. Imperial Ins. Co., 48 Minn. 380, 51 N. W. Rep. 123.
3. Smith v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 49 Wis. 322, 5 N. W. Rep. 804.
RULE 7. Insured may Dispose of Damaged Property after Reasonable
Insured may proceed to dispose of and sell damaged property after giving reasonable notice to the insurance company, which takes no action and makes no reply in reasonable time;' but assured has no right to make such disposition when notified in reasonable time of the company's desire to further examine the property, and the company's rights are not waived by the fact of a prior examination.?
1. Chainless Cycle Co. v. Security Ins. Co., 52 App. Div. 104, 64 N. Y. Supp. 1060, affd., 169 N. Y. 304, 62 N. E. Rep. 392. And see “Appraisal," Rule 2; “Options of the Insurance Company,” Title 1, Rule 4. 2. Astrich v. German-American Ins. Co., 131 Fed. Rep. 13,
C. C. A. affg. 128 Fed. Rep. 477.
CHAPTER SECOND. Parties to the Fire Insurance Contract and to the Adjust
ment of the Loss · Adjuster and Adjustment. TITLE 1. Parties to the fire insurance contract.
2. Legal representatives.
TITLE 1. Parties to the Fire Insurance Contract. RULE 1. Fire insurance personal contract of indemnity
Does not extend to other persons or interests with
out language indicating such intention. 2. Individuals insured as a company - Corporation. 3. Contract with infant. 4. Property for which assured liable. 5. Receiver. 6. Account of whom it may concern. 7. Property held in trust. 8. Property under conditional contract of sale. 9. Insurance of an estate. 10. Policy in name of deceased owner Wrong name. 11. Name of estate, loss payable to widow. 12. Wrong name
Reformation. 13. Meaning of words “As Interest may Appear.” 14. Policy issued to two persons as interest may appear. 15. Burden of proof as to interest. 16. Distinction between insurance of interest as it may
appear and making loss payable as may appear. 17. Effect of making loss payable to a third party. 18. Policy assignable after fire.
RULE 1. Fire Insurance Personal Contract of Indemnity Does not Extend
to other Persons or Interests Without Language Indicating such Intention.
The contract of fire insurance is one of indemnity, personal to the insured, and does not extend to another person or interest without language in or on the policy consenting to same, or covered and included in the description of the insured or the property;' while an agent may take out a policy in his own name, for benefit of owner, without giving name of the owner, the language of the policy must sufficiently indicate the intention.”
1. Whitehouse v. Cargill, 88 Me. 479, 34 Atl. Rep. 276; Carpenter v. Providence-Washington Ins. Co., 16 Pet. (U. S.) 495; Carroll v. Boston Ins. Co., 8 Mass. 515; Franklin Ins. Co. v. Wolff, 23 Ind. App. 553, 54 N. E. Rep. 772; Lindley v. Orr, 83 Ill. App. 70; Continental Ins. Co. v. Maxwell, 9 Kans. App. 268, 60 Pac. Rep. 539; Quarles v. Clayton, 87 Tenn. 308; Clinton v. Hope Ins. Co., 45 N. Y. 454; Lett v. Guardian Ins. Co., 125 N. Y. 82; McLaughlin v. Park City Bank, 22 Utah, 473, 63 Pac. Rep. 589; Skinner Ship-Building Co. v. Houghton, 92 Md. 68, 48 Atl. Rep. 85; Matter of West Norfolk Lumber Co., 112 Fed. Rep. 759; Foley v. Farragut Ins. Co., 71 Hun, 369, 24 N. Y. Supp. 1131; Wyman v. Prosser, 36 Barb. 368, affd., 26 N. Y. 253; Farmers & Merchants' Ins. Co. V. Jensen, 56 Nebr. 284, 76 N. W. Rep. 577, 78 N. W. Rep. 1054; Cummings v. Insurance Co., 55 N. H. 457; Kase v. Hartford Ins. Co., 58 N. J. L. 34, 32 Atl. Rep. 1057; Fuller v. Phønix Ins. Co., 61 Iowa, 350. And see Bishop v. Clay Ins. Co., 45 Conn. 430 ; Duncan v. Sun Mutual Ins. Co., 12 La. Ann. 486; Lee v. Adsit, 37 N. Y. 78; Harvey v. Cherry, 76 N. Y. 436; Peoria Ins. Co. v. Hall, 12 Mich. 202; Bailey v. Hope Ins. Co., 56 Me. 474; Hartford Ins. Co. v. Haas, 87 Ky. 531, 9 S. W. Rep. 720; St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Kelly, 43 Kans. 741, 23 Pac. Rep. 1046; Pitney v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 65 N. Y. 6.
2. Plahto v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 38 Mo. 248; Zimmerman v. Farmers’ Ins. Co., 76 Iowa, 352, 41 N. W. Rep. 39. And see Lee v. Adsit, 37 N. Y. 78; Goodall v. New England Ins. Co., 5 Fost. (N. H.) 169; Protection Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 6 Ohio St. 553; Freeman v. Fulton Ins. Co., 38 Barb. 247; Marts v. Cumberland Ins. Co., 44 N. J. L. 478; New Orleans Ins. Co. 1'. Spruance, 18 Ill. App. 576; Waring v. Indemnity Co., 45 N. Y. 606; Trade Ins. Co. v. Barracliff, 45 N. J. L. 543; Hagan v. Scottish Ins. Co., 186 U. S. 423, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 862, revy. 102 Fed. Rep. 919, 43 C. C. A. 55; Bennett v. Featherstone. 110 Tenn. 27, 71 S. W. Rep. 589; Scottish Union & National
Ins. Co. v. Hagan, 43 C. C. A. 55, 102 Fed. Rep. 919; Pelican Ins. Co. v. Smith, 107 Ala. 313, 18 So. Rep. 105, previous appeal, 92 Ala. 428; Ferguson v. Pekin Plow Co., 141 Mo. 161, 42 S. W. Rep. 711; Union Ins. Co. v. McCullough, Neb. 96 N. W. Rep. 79.
There is a material distinction between the existence of an insurable interest, and an insurable interest insured by a policy in question. An insurable interest does not depend upon ownership or title, and may exist whenever the person or party is so situated in reference to the property that he will suffer a pecuniary loss if it is damaged or destroyed.
Berry v. American Central Ins. Co., 132 N. Y. 49, 30 N. E. Rep. 254, 21 Ins. L. J. 455; National Filtering Oil Co. v. Citizens' Ins. Co., 106 N. Y. 535; Rohrbach v. Germania Ins. Co., 62 N. Y. 47; Harvey v. Cherry, 76 N. Y. 436; Helvetia Swiss Ins. Co. v. Allis Co., 11 Colo. App. 264, 53 Pac. Rep. 212; Hanover Ins. Co. v. Bohn, 48 Nebr. 743, 67 N. W. Rep. 774, 25 Ins. L. J. 681; Graham v. American Ins. Co., 48 S. C. 195, 26 S. E. Rep. 323, 26 Ins. L. J. 744; Hebner v. Palatine Ins. Co., 55 Ill. App. 275; Traders' Ins. Co. v. Pacaud, 150 Ill. 245, 37 N. E. Rep. 460, 23 Ins. L. J. 624; Creed v. Sun Fire Office, 101 Ala. 522, 14 So. Rep. 323, 23 Ins. L. J. 461; Hartford Ins. Co. v. Keating, 86 Md. 130, 38 Atl. Rep. 29, 27 Ins. L. J. 406; Hayes v. Milford Ins. Co., 170 Mass. 492, 49 N. E. Rep. 754, 27 Ins. L. J. 459; Hope Oil Mill Compress Co. v. Phænix Ins. Co., 74 Miss. 320, 21 So. Rep. 132, 26 Ins. L. J. 995.
If the insurable interest is other than unconditional sole ownership, the policy should contain language indicating intent to include or insure it, and such interest should be therein truly stated.
See the various standard forms of policy in chapter twelfth.
This subject will be more fully treated in a subsequent volume.
Individuals Insured as a Company - Corporation.
The fact that individuals are insured in a corporate name or as a company, when not incorporated, does not of itself affect the insurance on that ground;' and an insurance company cannot avoid payment of a loss simply by denying corporate existence of the