Page images
PDF
EPUB

amount paid the company is not injured2 and same principle applies to a settlement as to value.3

1. Dolloff v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 82 Me. 266, 19 Atl. Rep. 396; Capital Ins. Co. v. Beverly, 14 Ohio C. C. 468.

2. London & Lancashire Ins. Co. v. Liebes, 105 Cal. 203, 38 Pac. Rep. 691.

3. Commercial Bank v. Fireman's Ins. Co., 87 Wis. 297, 58 N. W. Rep. 391, 23 Ins. L. J. 543; Home Ins. Co. v. Lowenthal, Miss. 36 So. Rep. 1042.

,

Exception. In Nebraska the rule is that a recovery is not barred by fraud or false swearing in the proofs of loss when the actual value is greater than the aggregate insurance. Home Ins. Co. v. Winn, 42 Nebr. 334; Springfield Ins. Co. v. Winn, 27 Nebr. 649, 43 N. W. Rep. 401. See Rule 14.

RULE 7.

Not Necessary to Establish Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Inferred.

May be

It is not necessary to establish fraud beyond a reasonable doubt. Fraud need not have all the elements necessary to sustain an action for deceit; but any trick, or artifice, or deception practiced, with the object of securing some advantage in the adjustment or payment of the loss to the prejudice of the company, and liable to have that effect, avoids the policy;1 it may be established by presumption or inference from facts proved or circumstantial evidence;2 nor does it depend upon the fact that the company was actually deceived or misled, nor upon specific intent to gain excess in valuation. Insured's financial con

dition may be relevant."

1. Dohman Co. v. Niagara Ins. Co., 96 Wis. 38, 71 N. W. Rep. 69, 27 Ins. L. J. 357.

2. North British & M. Ins. Co. v. Tourville, 25 Can. S. C. 177.

3. Fowler v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 35 Oreg. 559, 57 Pac. Rep. 421, 28 Ins. L. J. 681; Virginia Ins. Co. v. Vaughan, 88 Va. 832, 14 S. E. Rep. 754; Bannon v. Ins. Co. of N. A., 115 Wis. 250, 91 N. W. Rep. 666.

4. Sleeper v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 56 N. H. 401.

5. Rickerman v. Williamsburg Ins. Co., 120 Wis. 655, 98 N. W. Rep. 960.

RULE 8.

When Proved by Circumstantial Evidence.

Where, in an action upon the policy, fraud is sought to be proved by circumstantial evidence, it is error for the trial court to instruct the jury that "all of the circumstances must point to the one thing claimed and admit of no other reasonable explanation," because such an instruction requires the fraud to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Knop v. National Ins. Co., 107 Mich. 323, 25 Ins. L. J. 181, 65 N. W. Rep. 228.

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

The false statement or swearing by the assured subsequent to the loss must be shown to be material before it can be claimed to avoid the policy; if the company has knowledge of facts a false statement in regard thereto cannot reasonably deceive or mislead it; and so, if a settlement has been agreed upon as to value or amount, and it is shown to be true and correct, alterations or erasures in books become immaterial; so overvaluation of itself is not material; it is not every slightest possible exaggeration of amount or value, even if knowingly and willfully made, that will avoid the policy.5

1. Feibelman v. Manchester Assur. Co., 108 Ala. 180, 19 So. Rep. 540; Jones v. Mechanics' Ins. Co., 36 N. J. L. 29; Planters' Ins. Co. v. Deford, 38 Md. 382; Parker v. Amazon Ins. Co., 34 Wis. 363; Little v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 123 Mass. 380; Gibbs v. Continental Ins. Co., 13 Hun, 611; Titus v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 81 N. Y. 410; Claflin v. Insurance Co., 110 U. S. 81; Sleeper v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 36 N. H. 101; Forehand v. Niagara Ins. Co., 58 Ill. App. 161; Marion v.

Great Republic Ins. Co., 35 Mo. 148; Mullin v. Vermont Ins. Co., 58 Vt. 113.

2. German Ins. Co. v. Lucket, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 139, 34 S. W. Rep. 173; Westchester Ins. Co. v. Wagner, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 140, 57 S. W. Rep. 876; Maher v. Hibernia Ins. Co., 67 N. Y. 283; Cary v. Home Ins. Co., 97 Iowa, 619, 66 N. W. Rep. 920; Rohrbach v. Etna Ins. Co., 62 N. Y. 613; Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Gargett, 42 Mich. 289.

3. Commercial Bank v. Fireman's Ins. Co., 87 Wis. 297, 58 N. W. Rep. 391, 23 Ins. L. J. 543.

4. Morotock Ins. Co. v. Fostoria Novelty Co., 94 Va. 361, 26 S. E. Rep. 850; Jersey City Ins. Co. v. Nichol, 35 N. J. Eq. 291; Towne v. Springfield F. & M. Ins. Co., 145 Mass. 582, 15 N. E. Rep. 112; Stone v. Hawkeye Ins. Co., 68 Iowa, 737; Kenton Ins. Co. v. Wigginton, 89 Ky. 330, 12 S. W. Rep. 668; Rogers v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 121 Ind. 570, 23 N. E. Rep. 498; Gerhauser v. North British & M. Ins. Co., 6 Nev. 15.

5. Hamberg v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co., 68 Minn. 335, 71 N. W. Rep. 388, 26 Ins. L. J. 782.

RULE 10.

Alterations and Erasures in Books.

Alterations and erasures in books are not conclusive upon an issue of fraud or false swearing; it is competent for the assured or his agent who made them to testify as to the intent in making them;1 but the question of fraudulent alteration is one which should be left to a jury.2

1. Commercial Bank v. Fireman's Ins. Co., 87 Wis. 297, 58 N. W. Rep. 391, 23 Ins. L. J. 543. And see Weide v. Germania Ins. Co., 1 Dill. (U. S.) 441.

2. Kelly v. Indemnity Ins. Co., 38 N. Y. 322; Bannon v. Ins. Co. of N. A., 115 Wis. 250, 91 N. W. Rep. 666.

RULE II.

Fraud by Agent of Insured.

Fraud or false swearing cannot be predicated upon the statements or acts of an agent of assured unless

known to and acquiesced in by the assured;1 nor can he be made responsible for fraud or attempted fraud of an agent upon the theory that the agent is included in the term "legal representative." 2

1. Insurance Co. v. Scales, 101 Tenn. 628, 49 S. W. Rep. 743. And see Mullin v. Vermont Ins. Co., 58 Vt. 113.

2. Metzger v. Manchester Assur. Co., 102 Mich. 334, 63 N. W. Rep. 650.

RULE 12.

Effect of Difference in Amount Sworn to in Proofs and on Trial.

The mere fact of difference between the amount or value as sworn to in the proofs of loss and the actual cash value as sworn to in a trial,' or by appraisal,2 does not of itself establish fraud or false swearing, although it may require submission of the question to a jury; and while the difference, as established by their verdict, does not necessarily require setting of same aside,3 yet it may be so material under the circumstances of the case as to establish the fraud and false swearing, and to induce the trial court to set aside the verdict.*

1. Commercial Ins. Co. v. Friedlander, 156 Ill. 595, 41 N. E. Rep. 183, 24 Ins. L. J. 789, affg. 57 Ill. App. 372; Obersteller v. Commercial Assur. Co., 96 Cal. 645, 31 Pac. Rep. 587, 22 Ins. L. J. 392; Erb v. German-American Ins. Co., 98 Iowa, 606, 67 N. W. Rep. 583; Davis v. Guardian Assur. Co., 87 Hun, 414, 34 N. Y. Supp. 332. And see Oshkosh Provision Co. v. Mercantile Ins. Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 200; Williams v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 61 Me. 67; Unger v. People's Ins. Co., 4 Daly, 96; Israel v. Teutonia Ins. Co., 28 La. Ann. 689; Schulter v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 62 Mo. 236; Dogge v. Northwestern Ins. Co., 49 Wis. 501; Insurance Co. v. Weides, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 375; Sternfeld v. Park Ins. Co., 50 Hun, 262; Goldstein v. Franklin Ins. Co., 170 Mass. 243.

2. Dolan v. Ætna Ins. Co., 22 Hun, 396.

3. Gerhauser v. North B. & M. Ins. Co., 7 Nev. 174; Obersteller v. Commercial Ins. Co., 96 Cal. 645, 31 Pac. Rep.

587; Wolf v. Goodhue Ins. Co., 43 Barb. 400; Williams v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 61 Me. 67; Commercial Ins. Co. v. Friedlander, 156 Ill. 595, 41 N. E. Rep. 183; Davis v. Guardian Assur. Co., 87 Hun, 414, 34 N. Y. Supp. 332; Goldstein v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co., Iowa, ,99 N. W. Rep. 696.

4. Furlong v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 64 Hun, 632, 18 N. Y. Supp. 844, 28 Abb. N. C. 444; Anibal v. Insurance Co. of N. A., 84 App. Div. 634, 82 N. Y. Supp. 600; Sternfield v. Park Ins. Co., 50 Hun, 262; Wall v. Howard Ins. Co., 51 Me. 32. And see to same effect, Levy v. Baillie, 7 Bing. (Eng.) 349.

RULE 13.

Actual Extent of Loss Relevant on Question of Intent.

But the actual value or extent of the loss may be an element proper for consideration in determining whether the statement claimed to be fraudulent was willfully false or an error of judgment, misinformation, misrecollection, or mistake, as bearing on intent. Hanscom v. Home Ins. Co., 90 Me. 333, 350.

RULE 14.

Raising Amounts in Invoices

False Statements as to Property or Interest.

The willful raising of amounts in copies of invoices furnished, and verification of same by sworn statement or affidavit, is such false swearing and attempt at fraud as to void the insurance;1 and so, where the assured swears to double the actual value of a house, and includes items which were not in the house; and so, where he falsely swears that no one besides himself had any interest therein, though the intent may be required to be submitted to a jury.3

1. Home Ins. Co. v. Winn, 42 Nebr. 331, 60 N. W. Rep. 575, 24 Ins. L. J. 126. And see Virginia Ins. Co. v. Vaughan, 88 Va. 832, 14 S. E. Rep. 754, subsequent appeal, 46 id. 692.

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »