Page images
PDF
EPUB

opinion of a third person skilled in a special branch embraced in the appraisal.2

1. Strome v. London Assur. Co., 20 App. Div. 571, 47 N. Y. Supp. 481, affd., 162 N. Y. 627, without opinion; Schmitt v. Boston Ins. Co., 82 App. Div. 234, 81 N. Y. Supp. 767; N. Y. Mutual Savings Assoc. v. Manchester Assur. Co., 94 App. Div. 104, 87 N. Y. Supp. 1075; British-American Assur. Co. v. Darragh, 128 Fed. Rep. 890, 63 C. C. A. 426.

2. Bangor Savings Bank v. Niagara Ins. Co., 85 Me. 68, 26 Atl. Rep. 991.

RULE 66.

Appraisers Have no Right to Make an Additional Award. Appraisers having delivered an award have no right to make an additional award in the absence of further agreement upon the subject.

Eddy v. London Assur. Co., 65 Hun, 307, 20 N. Y. Supp. 216.

Award Binding

RULE 67.

- Does not Depend upon Acceptance, Tender, or Payment.

An award of appraisers is binding even although the details connected with the appointment of the appraisers and the appraisement itself are not in strict accordance with the requirements of the policy. It is perfectly competent for the parties to waive or vary any or all of the conditions of the policy as to the time and mode of appraisal; they may voluntarily and mutually agree to refer questions to appraisers without any previous disagreement as to amount of loss,1 and the binding effect of an award does not depend upon acceptance, tender, or payment.2

1. London & Lancashire Ins. Co. v. Storrs, 71 Fed. Rep. 120, 17 C. C. A. 645, 36 U. S. App. 327, 25 Ins. L. J. 283; Remington Paper Co. v. London Assur. Co., 12 App. Div. 218, 43 N. Y.

Supp. 431; Springfield F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Payne, 57 Kans. 291, 46 Fac. Rep. 315, 26 Ins. L. J. 46. And see Hall v. Norwalk Ins. Co., 57 Conn. 105, 17 Atl. Rep. 356; Enright v. Montauk Ins. Co., 15 N. Y. Supp. 893, affd. on opinion below, 142 N. Y. 66, 37 N. E. Rep. 570.

2. Hanover Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 28 Fla. 209. And see Rules 22, 29.

RULE 68.

Award Final and Conclusive- When Rendered Void.

1

In the absence of fraud or misconduct the determination of appraisers in an award properly made is conclusive and cannot be set aside merely for claimed inadequacy or excessiveness; but an award may be so grossly inadequate that when it appears in connection that company's appraiser controlled both the other appraiser and the umpire, or was not in fact disinterested and impartial, it is ground for setting same aside; and so where appraiser acts under assured's direction, and not on his own judgment, examination, and investigation, but arrives at result on assured's bills, invoices, and books, it is such misconduct as to void the award."

1. Stemmer v. Scottish Ins. Co., 33 Oreg. 65, 53 Pac. Rep. 498, 27 Ins. L. J. 972; Strome v. London Assur. Co., 20 App. Div. 571, 47 N. Y. Supp. 481, affd., 1C2 N. Y. 627, without opinion. And see Fleming v. Phonix Assur. Co., 75 Hun, 530, 27 N. Y. Supp. 488.

2. Hartford Ins. Co. v. Bonner Mercantile Co., 56 Fed. Rep. 378, 15 U. S. App. 134, 5 C. C. A. 524.

3. Glover v. Rochester German Ins. Co., 11 Wash. 143, 39 Pac. Rep. 380; Royal Ins. Co. v. Parlin Co., 12 Tex. Civ. App. 572, 34 S. W. Rep. 401; Bradshaw v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 137 N. Y. 137; Kaiser v. Hamburg-Bremen Ins. Co., 59 App. Div. 525, 69 N. Y. Supp. 344; Insurance Co. of N. A. v. Hegewald, 161 Ind. 631, 66 N. E. Rep. 902. And see Perry v. Greenwich Ins. Co., N. C. 49 S. E. Rep. 889.

4. Hartford Ins. Co. v. Bonner Mercantile Co., 44 Fed. Rep.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

The settled doctrine of the decisions precludes an investigation by the court after an award has been properly made of the question of the measure of damage, unless there was corruption or partiality of the appraisers or misconduct during the course of the appraisal, or fraud in the opposite party; it requires strong proof of fraud, accident, mistake, or concealment to justify interference by the court with an award; neither error of judgment nor mistake of fact, unless gross and palpable, affords any ground;2 in absence of fraud or dishonesty an award cannot be set aside for mistakes or omissions of the appraisers unless same appear upon face of the appraisal and award itself;3 exclusion of pertinent or material evidence by appraisers is usually fatal to an award; or proceeding without notice to assured and appraisers or without affording opportunity of being heard; but refusal to hear evidence does not necessarily make void the award. 6

1. Hartford Ins. Co. v. Bonner Mercantile Co., 56 Fed. Rep. 378, 15 U. S. App. 134, 5 C. C. A. 524, 22 Ins. L. J. 801; Barnard v. Lancashire Ins. Co. (C. C. A.), 101 Fed. Rep. 36; Robertson v. Lion Ins. Co., 73 Fed. Rep. 928. And see Fleming

v. Phoenix Assur. Co., 75 Hun, 530; Indiana Ins. Co. v. Brehm, 88 Ind. 578; Morley v. Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co., 85 Mich. 210; Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Goehring, 99 Pa. St. 13; Springfield Ins. Co. v. Payne, 57 Kans. 291; Stockton Works v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 98 Cal. 557, 33 Pac. Rep. 633; Cassidy v. Royal Exchange Ins. Co., Me. 59 Atl. Rep. 549; Billmyer v. Hamburg-Bremen Ins. Co., W. Va. S. E. Rep. 901.

[ocr errors]

49

,

2. Bates v. British American Ins. Co., 100 Ga. 249, 28 S. E. Rep. 155. And see Mosness v. German-American Ins. Co., 50 Minn. 341, 52 N. W. Rep. 932; Ætna Ins. Co. v. Davis (Ky.), 55 S. W. Rep. 705; Vincent v. German Ins. Co., 120 Iowa, 272, 94 N. W. Rep. 458.

3. Remington Paper Co. v. London Assur. Co., 12 App. Div. 218, 43 N. Y. Supp. 431; Stemmer v. Scottish Ins. Co., 33 Oreg. 65, 53 Pac. Rep. 498, 27 Ins. L. J. 972. And see Caledonian Ins. Co. v. Traub, 80 Md. 214, 30 Atl. Rep. 904.

4. Mosness v. German-American Ins. Co., 50 Minn. 341, 52 N. W. Rep. 932; Canfield v. Watertown Ins. Co., 55 Wis. 419; Springfield F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Payne, 57 Kans. 291, 46 Pac. Rep. 315, 26 Ins. L. J. 46; Stemmer v. Scottish Ins. Co., supra.

5. Linde v. Republic Ins. Co., 50 N. Y. Super. 362; Hills v. Home Ins. Co., 129 Mass. 345; Schreiber v. German-American Ins. Co., 43 Minn. 367; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Moore (Tex. Civ. App.), 46 S. W. Rep. 1131. And see cases under note 1, supra. 6. Hall v. Norwalk Ins. Co., 57 Conn. 105; Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Goehring, 99 Pa. St. 13. And see Stemmer v. Scottish Ins. Co., supra; Vincent v. German Ins. Co., 120 Iowa, 272, 94 N. W. Rep. 458.

RULE 70.

Award Cannot Exceed Amount of Policy.

The amount of the award cannot exceed the amount of the policy.

Imperial Ins. Co. v. Kiernan, 83 Ky. 469.

RULE 71.

Award Invalid When Made by Umpire and One of the Appraisers, When Other Withdraws before Completion of Appraisal.

Where one of the appraisers withdraws before the completion of the work of appraisal, and the award is then made by the other appraiser and the umpire, the award is invalid because not made in accordance with the policy which requires combined action by the appraisers. If the withdrawal of the appraiser is at in

stigation of the insured, it defeats recovery; otherwise, where he is not in fault; it is a question for a jury.

Caledonian Ins. Co. v. Traub, 83 Md. 524, 35 Atl. Rep. 13, 25 Ins. L. J. 791.

RULE 72.

Award Binding Only to Extent of Subject-Matter Submitted.

An award is binding only to the extent of the subjectmatter submitted and acted upon by the appraiser; when confined to visible damaged property it does not exclude subsequent claim and evidence of other and additional proper loss and damage.

Hong Sling v. Scottish Union Ins. Co., 7 Utah, 441, 27 Pac. Rep. 170. And see Pioneer Mfg. Co. v. Phoenix Assur. Co., 110 N. C. 176, 14 S. E. Rep. 731; Commercial Ins. Co. v. Friedlander, 156 Ill. 595, 41 N. E. Rep. 183; Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Colgin (Tex.), 34 S. W. Rep. 291; Rutter and Hendrix v. Hanover Ins. Co., Ala. 35 So. Rep. 33.

RULE 73.

Concealment of Material Evidence by Insured.

Concealment of material evidence by the assured may operate as evidence of a fraud avoiding an award in consequence of it.

Stockton Works v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 98 Cal. 557, 33 Pac. Rep. 633.

RULE 74.

Award not Set Aside on Evidence of Other Independent

Appraisers.

An award will not be set aside on ground of fraud, mistake, or inadequacy, upon evidence of independent appraisers employed subsequently by the assured, and

« PreviousContinue »