2. West v. British-America Assur. Co. (U. S. Cir.), 25 Ins. L. J. 689.

3. Grettleman v. Commercial Union Assur. Co., 97 Wis. 237, 72 N. W. Rep. 627, 27 Ins. L. J. 160.

RULE 15.

What is not Fraud or False Swearing.

It is not fraud and false swearing for the assured to swear in his proofs that the property was burned or destroyed by fire, when in fact the loss and damage was caused by smoke and water;1 nor is it established by omission of assured to include or state in proofs a policy which, before the fire, had been recalled for cancellation, but not actually canceled until after the fire; nor can it be predicated on a false statement in proofs prepared by company's adjuster and not read by assured; nor is an overestimate of a loss, based upon a wrong theory, necessarily fraudulent;* and so with any innocent exaggerated mistake in valuation,5 or omission founded on mistaken belief, or insertion of articles by mistake."

1. Kahn v. Traders' Ins. Co., 4 Wyo. 419, 34 Pac. Rep. 1059, 23 Ins. L. J. 401.

2. Gough v. Davis, 24 Misc. 245, 52 N. Y. Supp. 947, affd., no opinion, 39 App. Div. 639.

3. Home Ins. Co. v. Mendenhall, 64 Ill. App. 30, affd., 164 Ill. 458, 45 N. E. Rep. 1078. And see Dogge v. Northwestern Ins. Co., 49 Wis. 501.

4. Hilton v. Phoenix Assur. Co., 92 Me. 272, 42 Atl. Rep. 412.

5. Hubbard v. North B. & M. Ins. Co., 57 Mo. App. 1; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Sherman, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 456, 43 S. W. Rep. 930; Western Assur. Co. v. Ray, 105 Ky. 523, 49 S. W. Rep. 326, 28 Ins. L. J. 326; Carson v. Jersey City Ins. Co., 43 N. J. L. 300. And see Rule 12.

6. Thierolf v. Universal Ins. Co., 110 Pa. St. 37, 20 Atl. Rep. 412. And see Towne v. Springfield Ins. Co., 145 Mass. 582, 15 N. E. Rep. 112.

7. Tubbs v. Dwelling-House Ins. Co., 84 Mich. 646, 48 N. W. Rep. 296; Boyd v. Royal Ins. Co., 111 N. C. 372, 16 S. E. Rep. 389.

RULE 16.

Claiming Money Payable to Third Party — Statements as to Title.

Claiming under oath moneys which insured knows belongs to party to whom loss payable as interest may appear, may be evidence of attempted fraud;1 and so assured may be guilty of fraud and false swearing when he states in the proofs of loss that his title is absolute and unincumbered, when it is subject to a lien for entire amount,2 but not when he merely omits to mention a lien without fraudulent intent.3

1. Lewis v. Council Bluffs Ins. Co., 63 Iowa, 193, 18 N. W. Rep. 888.

2. Security Ins. Co. v. Bronger, 69 Ky. 146.

3. Dresser v. United Firemen's Ins. Co., 45 Hun, 298, affd. without opinion, 122 N. Y. 642; Thierolf v. Universal Ins. Co., 110 Pa. St. 37, 20 Atl. Rep. 412.

RULE 17.

Not Fraud to Pay Premium After Loss.

It is not fraud to pay the premium after an oral contract of insurance and after a loss without disclosing it.

Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Kuessner, 164 Ill. 275, 45 N. E. Rep. 540. And see opinion below, 59 Ill. App. 432.

RULE 18.

Question of Fact for Jury.

Whether statements in proofs of loss were made understandingly as an attempt to defraud the insurance company, is ordinarily a question of fact for a jury; the burden of proof rests upon the insurance company.2

1. Home Ins. Co. v. Field, 53 Ill. App. 119; Fink v. Lancashire Ins. Co., 60 Mo. App. 673. And see Levi v. Brooklyn Ins. Co., 25 Wend. 687; Hurd v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 39 Mich. 443; Home Ins. Co. v. Mendenhall, 164 Ill. 458; Goldstein v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co., Iowa, , 99 N. W. Rep. 696; Burge v. Greenwich Ins. Co., Mo. App. 80 S. W. Rep. 342; Herzog v. Palatine Ins. Co., Wash. 79 Pac. Rep.

287.

2. Cheever v. British-Amer. Ins. Co., 86 App. Div. 333, 83 N. Y. Supp. 728.

RULE 19.

Waiver of Forfeiture.

If the insurance company, with knowledge of the facts, delivers a draft in payment of the loss, it operates as waiver of any forfeiture founded upon fraud or false swearing relating to or connected with such facts; but if delivered without knowledge, and discovered before acceptance and payment, then fraud in adjustment of the loss may be a good defense;2 and so where the insurance company has accepted orders of the insured which have not been paid.3

1. West Coast Lumber Co. v. State Investment Ins. Co., 98 Cal. 502, 33 Pac. Rep. 258, 22 Ins. L. J. 681.

30.

2. Anderson v. Stapel, 80 Mo. App. 115.

3. Omaha Ins. Co. v. Thomson, 50 Nebr. 580, 70 N. W. Rep.

RULE 20.

Fraud Voids Entire Contract.

Fraud, when established, voids the whole sum otherwise due under the contract and not merely the particular item to which it related.

Hamberg v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co., 68 Minn. 335; Home Ins. Co. v. Connelly, 104 Tenn. 93, 56 S. W. Rep. 828; Moore

v. Virginia Ins. Co., 28 Gratt. (Va.) 508; Moore v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 28 Gratt. (Va.) 524. And see Oshkosh Packing Co. v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 200; Dohman Co. v. Niagara Ins. Co., 96 Wis. 38, 71 N. W. Rep. 69, 27 Ins. L. J. 357; Miller v. Delaware Ins. Co., Okla. , 75 Pac. Rep. 1121, 65 L. R. A. 172; Hall v. Western Underwriters' Assoc., 106 Mo. App. 476, 81 S. W. Rep. 227; Worachek v. New Denmark Ins. Co., 102 Wis. 88, 78 N. W. Rep. 411. See Rule 22, and Construction."

66

RULE 21.

Intentional Fire Caused by Insured.

If fire is caused by insured while insane it is no defense to an action upon the policy;1 otherwise, if sane and caused by his voluntary act, assent, procurement, or design, but not when willfully caused by a third party without assured's knowledge;" and so husband or wife can willfully burn each other's property without voiding the insurance, unless the other insured is privy and party to same; willful burning may be established by circumstantial evidence" and by preponderance of evidence; it is not necessary to prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, as required in a criminal prosecution." It is no defense that fire was caused by the negligence of insured, unless willful or fraudulent."

1. Karow v. Continental Ins. Co., 57 Wis. 56; Autremont v. Fire Assoc., 65 Hun, 475, 20 N. Y. Supp. 344.

2 Karow v. Continental Ins. Co., 57 Wis. 56.

3. Grant v. Elliot Ins. Co., 76 Me. 514; Feibelman v. Manchester Ins. Co., 108 Ala. 180, 19 So. Rep. 540; Perry v. Mechanics' Ins. Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 485; Gove v. Farmers' Ins. Co., 48 N. H. 41; Union Ins. Co. v. McCullough, Nebr. 96 N. W. Rep. 79; Malin v. Mercantile Ins. Co., Mo. App. 80 S. W. Rep. 56.

4. Perry v. Mechanics' Ins. Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 485; Gove v. Farmers' Ins. Co., 48 N. H. 41; Midland Ins. Co. v. Smith, L. R. 6 Q. B. Div. 561; Walker v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 62 Mo. App. 209. 5. Drover v. Continental Ins. Co., 63 Tex. 354; Farmers' Ins. Co. r. Crampton, 43 Mich. 421; Hotchkiss v. Germania Ins. Co., 5 Hun, 90; Insurance Co. of N. A. v. McDowell, 50 Ill. 120; McWilliams v. Cascade Ins. Co., 7 Wash. 48, 34 Pac. Rep. 140; Agnew v. Farmers' Ins. Co., 95 Wis. 445, 70 N. W. Rep.

554; Joy v. Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 74 S. W. Rep. 822.

6. Continental Ins. Co. v. Jacknichen, 110 Ind. 59; Somerset Ins. Co. v. Usaw, 112 Pa. St. 80; Behrens v. Germania Ins. Co., 58 Iowa, 26; Johnson v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 25 Hun, 251; Monaghan v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 53 Mich. 238; Rothschild v. American Central Ins. Co., 62 Mo. 356; Blaesser v. Milwaukee Ins. Co., 37 Wis. 31; Simmons v. Insurance Co., 8 W. Va. 474; Ætna Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 11 Bush (Ky.), 587; Kane v. Hibernia Ins. Co., 10 Vroom (N. J.), 697; Blackburn v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co., 116 N. C. 821, 21 S. E. Rep. 922. And see Hart v. Niagara Ins. Co., 9 Wash. 620, 38 Pac. Rep. 213, 27 L. R. A. 86.

Kans.

7. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Owens, 77 Pac. Rep. 544; Pool v. Milwaukee Mechanics' Ins. Co., 91 Wis. 530, 65 N. W. Rep. 54.

RULE 22.

Effect of Statute Fixing Amount of Loss.

In case of total loss of building, when the insurance company is liable for full amount written under statute, it is no defense that assured fraudulently stated an excessive valuation in his proofs of loss;1 but otherwise as to its contents or personal property; fraud in connection therewith voids the entire policy, but otherwise void as to personalty only when insured by specified amount in separate item.3

1. German Ins. Co. v. Jansen, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 190, 45 S. W. Rep. 220; Sullivan v. Hartford Ins. Co., 89 Tex. 665, 36 S. W. Rep. 73, 25 Ins. L. J. 705; Barnard v. People's Ins. Co., 66 N. H. 401, 29 Atl. Rep. 1033; Cayon v. Dwelling-House Ins. Co., 68 Wis. 510, 32 N. W. Rep. 540. Otherwise under the Missouri statute. Walker v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 62 Mo. App. 209.

2. Oshkosh Provision Co. v. Mercantile Ins. Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 200. And see Dolloff v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 82 Me. 266, 19 Atl. Rep. 396.

3. Sullivan v. Hartford Ins. Co., 89 Tex. 665, 36 S. W. Rep. 73, 25 Ins. L. J. 705.