son other than insured had any interest, equivalent of assertion of no incumbrance; names of other companies and amounts of their several policies may be sufficient, without copies, unless specifically required;* an itemized statement of the value and loss should be given, if possible, and in power of the insured; as to cause or origin of the fire it is sufficient, if not known, to say that it is unknown, but that it was not caused by the insured or by his procurement; or assured may state his information; while proper it is not necessary for the assured to apportion the loss.8

1. Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Goode, 95 Va. 751, 30 S. E. Rep. 366; Jones v. Mechanics' Ins. Co., 36 N. J. L. 29; Willis v. Germania Ins. Co., 79 N. C. 285; McLaughlin v. Washington Ins. Co., 23 Wend. 525; Bumstead v. Dividend Ins. Co., 12 N. Y. 81; Boyle v. Hamburg-Bremen Ins. Co., 169 Pa. St. 349; McManus v. Western Assur. Co., 22 Misc. 269; Willis v. Germania Ins. Co., 79 N. C. 285; Dyer v. Des Moines Ins. Co., 103 Iowa, 524; Peet v. Dakota Ins. Co., 1 S. D. 462, 47 N. W. Rep. 532; De Raiche v. Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co., 83 Minn. 398, 86 N. W. Rep. 425; Robinson v. Palatine Ins. Co., N. M. , 66 Pac. Rep. 535; Nixon v. Queen Ins. Co., 23 Can. S. C. 26; Billmyer v. Hamburg-Bremen Ins. Co., W. Va.

49 S. E. Rep. 901.

2. Etna Ins. Co. v. People's Bank, 62 Fed. Rep. 222, 106 C. C. A. 342, 23 Ins. L. J. 807.

3. Davis v. Grand Rapids Ins. Co., 15 Misc. 263, 36 N. Y. Supp. 792, affd. without opinion, 157 N. Y. 685.

4. Spofford Bros.' Dry Goods v. American Central Ins. Co., 76 Mo. App. 27; Scottish Union & Nat. Ins. Co. v. Keene, 85 Md. 263, 37 Atl. Rep. 33, 26 Ins. L. J. 963; Wicking v. Citizens' Mutual Ins. Co., 118 Mich. 640, 77 N. W. Rep. 275, 28 Ins. L. J. 220. And see Miller v. Hartford Ins. Co., 70 Iowa, 704; Towne v. Springfield Ins. Co., 145 Mass. 582; Blakely r. Phoenix Ins. Co., 20 Wis. 205; Jones v. Howard Ins. Co., 117 N. Y. 103, 22 N. E. Rep. 578.

5. Gauche v. London & Lancashire Ins. Co., 10 Fed. Rep. 347; Gottlieb v. Dutchess County Ins. Co., 89 Hun, 36, 35 N. Y. Supp. 710; Beatty v. Lycoming Ins. Co., 66 Pa. St. 9.

6. Howard Ins. Co. v. Hocking, 115 Pa. St. 415; Warshawky v. Anchor Ins. Co., 98 Iowa, 221. And see Jones v. Howard Ins. Co., 117 N. Y. 103, 22 N. E. Rep. 578; McNally v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 137 N. Y. 389.

7. White v. Royal Ins. Co., 149 N. Y. 485.

8. Fuller v. Detroit Ins. Co., 36 Fed. Rep. 469.

When the statement is signed by the insured, and his oath certified by the notary, it is not essential that the insured should also sign the affidavit or verification. McManus v. Western Assur. Co., 43 App. Div. 550, affd. without opinion, 167 N. Y. 602.

RULE 22.

When Policy Insures Party on Property in Possession or for which Liable.

When policy insures a carrier or other party on property in possession or for which he may be liable, it is sufficient to annex to the statement the names of the owners of property lost, the value of such property, and damages sustained by each so far as possible.

Force v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co., 81 App. Div. 633, 80 N. Y. Supp. 708.

RULE 23.

Provision as to Statement of Other Insurance.

The requirement that all other insurance shall be stated, whether valid or not, does not require the statement of mere propositions for insurance unaccepted.

Partridge v. Milwaukee Mechanics' Ins. Co., 13 App. Div. 519, 43 N. Y. Supp. 632, affd. without opinion, 162 N. Y. 597.

RULE 24.

Carpenter's Bill or Statement not a Substitute or Compliance.

A bill or statement prepared by carpenters, stating the cost of rebuilding a building destroyed by the fire,

is not a sufficient statement or proof of loss;1 unless by special terms in the policy it is made such.2

1. Heusinkveld v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co., 96 Iowa, 224, 64 N. W. Rep. 769, 25 Ins. L. J. 392; Citizens' Ins. Co. v. Doll, 35 Md. 89.

2. Summerfield v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 65 Fed. Rep. 292.

RULE 25.

Statement or Proof of Stocks of Merchandise Actual Cash Value Should be Stated.

The statement or proof of loss need not give specific items of goods or stock insured and destroyed, when it is not possible to do so; it may be sufficient to give amount of stock on hand at certain date with amounts of purchases subsequently, and amount of sales less deduction of a certain percentage representing profits;1 and an itemized statement is not required wherever goods or property is absolutely destroyed, and it is not practicable or possible to make one; but the actual cash value should be stated and not left to be inferred.3

1. Scottish Union & Nat. Ins. Co. v. Keene, 85 Md. 263, 37 Atl. Rep. 33, 26 Ins. L. J. 963.

2. Davis v. Grand Rapids Ins. Co., 15 Misc. 263, 36 N. Y. Supp. 792, affd. without opinion, 157 N. Y. 685.

3. Brock v. Des Moines Ins. Co., 96 Iowa, 39, 64 N. W. Rep. 685. See Amount of Loss or Damage, Rule 21.

RULE 26.

Statement Limited to Particulars Called for by the Policy.

The statement or proof of loss need not give information or particulars not specifically provided for.

De Raiche v. Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co., 83 Minn. 398, 86 N. W. Rep. 425.

RULE 27.

When Insured Holds More than One Policy of Same Company. When assured holds more than one policy of the same company, covering same property, he is not required to furnish more than one statement or proof of loss.

Dakin v. Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co., 13 Hun, 122, affd., 77 N. Y. 600.

RULE 28.

Conditions Operative Only when Required are Independent of the Statement or Proof of Loss.

Such clauses or conditions which only come into force or operation on being "required," like that relating to the certificate of a notary or magistrate,' or copies of bills or invoices,2 are independent of the clause relating to the statement or proof of loss; a demand for a notary's certificate is not a demand for amended proof of loss, nor does a mere objection that statement furnished does not contain the certificate amount to a "requirement of the certificate;" such a certificate is no part of the proof of loss, and it need not be furnished with or annexed to the proof or statement of loss.

1. Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Gibbs, 56 N. J. L. 679, 29 Atl. Rep. 485, 23 Ins. L. J. 791; McNally v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 137 N. Y. 390.

2. Etna Ins. Co. v. McLead, 57 Kans. 95, 45 Pac. Rep. 73, 25 Ins. L. J. 669.

RULE 29.

Statements Refer to Date of Fire.

Statements refer to date of fire and not to date of proofs, although in present tense.

Wicking v. Citizens' Mut. Ins. Co., 118 Mich. 640, 77 N. W. Rep. 275, 28 Ins. L. J. 220. And see Jones v. Howard Ins. Co., 117 N. Y. 103, 22 N. E. Rep. 578.

1

RULE 30.

Effect of Overestimate of Value.

An over-estimate as to value does not defeat the claim to the insurance unless intentionally fraudulent.

Vergeront v. German Ins. Co., 86 Wis. 425, 56 N. W. Rep. 1096, 23 Ins. L. J. 236. And see "Fraud or False Swearing."

RULE 31.

In Case of a Reinsurance Policy.

In case of a reinsurance policy the condition in regard to the statement or proof of loss may be complied with by the reinsured company transmitting to the other the proofs made by the original assured;1 but if there is a clause in the reinsurance policy that it is made subject to same risks, valuations, conditions, and mode of settlement as are or may be adopted or assumed by the reinsured company, it dispenses with preliminary proof, and binds the company to the adjustment made with the original assured, so far as the amount of loss is concerned.2

1. New York Bowery Ins. Co. v. New York Ins. Co., 17 Wend. 359. And see Whitney v. American Ins. Co., 127 Cal. 464, 59 Pac. Rep. 897.

2. Consolidated Real Estate Co. v. Cashow, 41 Md. 59.

RULE 32.

When Building a Total Loss in Pennsylvania.

In Pennsylvania, where a building is a total loss, a particular statement or proof of loss as to amount or value is not required;1 but may be required as to statement of other facts called for by the condition.2

1. Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Moyer, 97 Pa. St. 441; Pennsylvania Ins. Co. v. Dougherty, 102 Pa. St. 568; Universal Ins. Co. v.