« PreviousContinue »
is binding upon such owner, whose remedy, if any, is against the widow's executor.
Ridge v. Home Ins. Co., 64 Mo. App. 108.
Wrong Name - Reformation. Where policy issues in wrong name, with knowledge of the company's agent as to the facts and correct name, the proper remedy is by suit for reformation.' The mortgagee clause operates as an independent con tract notwithstanding wrong name of insured.2
1. McCoubray v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co., 50 App. Div. 416, 64 N. Y. Supp. 112, affd., 169 N. Y. 590, without opinion. And see Lancashire Ins. Co. v. Lucas (Ky.), 34 S. W. Rep. 899; Trustees St. Clara Academy v. Delaware Ins. Co., 93 Wis. 57, 66 N. W. Rep. 1140; Croft v. Hanover Ins. Co., 40 W. Va. 508, 21 S. E. Rep. 854; Thomason v. Capital Ins. Co., 92 Iowa, 72, 61 N. W. Rep. 843. See Rule 10.
2. Phænix Assur. Co. v. Hinds, 67 Kans. 595, 73 Pac. Rep. 893. See Mortgagor and Mortgagee, Rule 2.
Meaning of Words "As Interest May Appear.” Where the loss is made payable to a certain party or person “as interest may appear,” these words do noi necessarily refer to an interest in the property insured, but extend to an interest as creditor or the like; and when the interest exceeds the amount of the insurance, such appointee to receive the loss may claim the whole without joining the insured;' and the interest may be established by another contract.2
1. Donaldson v. Sun Mutual Ins. Co., 95 Tenn. 289, 32 S. W. Rep. 251, 25 Ins. L. J. 277; West Coast Lumber Co. v. State Investment Ins. Co., 98 Cal. 502, 33 Pac. Rep. 258, 22 Ins. L. J. 681; Brown v. Commercial Ins. Co., 21 App. D. C. 325.
2. Graham v. American Ins. Co., 48 S. C. 195, 26 S. E. Rep. 323, 26 Ins. L. J. 744.
RULE 14. Policy Issued to Two Persons as Interest may Appear. Where policy issues to two persons as interest may appear, the company has no right to determine what sum shall be paid to each, and if it pays the whole sum to either, it does so at its peril. Under such circumstances both are necessary parties to a release or to an action to recover on the policy unless it appear that the interest of one has been extinguished.
Besant v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 72 App. Div. 276, 76 N. Y. Supp. 35. And see Kent v. Ætna Ins. Co., 84 App. Div. 428, 82 N. Y. Supp. 817; Davis v. New England Ins. Co., 70 Vt. 217, 39 Atl. Rep. 1095.
Burden of Proof as to Interest. Where loss is made payable to a third party as “ his interest may appear,” the burden rests upon such party of establishing his interest.
Wilcox v. Mutual Ins. Co., 81 Minn. 478, 84 N. W. Rep. 334.
Distinction Between Insurance of Interest as it may Appear and
Making Loss Payable as may Appear. There is distinction between insuring certain named persons as assured “as interest may appear insurance of owner with loss payable to third party as interest may appear.
De Wolf v. Capital City Ins. Co., 16 Hun, 116; Dakin v. Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co., 77 N. Y. 600. And see Rule 14.
RULE 17. Effect of Making Loss Payable to a Third Party. Insertion of a clause making the loss, if any, payable to a mortgagee or other third party, merely makes
such third party an appointee to receive the loss; the relation of the parties is not thereby changed; and if the policy is forfeited by the insured, such appointee ceases to have any interest or claim to the insurance ; where loss is made payable to third party without limitation to his interest as it may appear, he may claim and receive the whole loss due under the policy, holding the excess over his own interest as a trustee for benefit of the owner.2
1. Home Ins. Co. v. Hauslein, 60 Ill. 521; Wunderlick v. Palatine Ins. Co., 104 Wis. 395, 80 N. W. Rep. 471; Van Alstyne v. Ætna Ins. Co., 14 Hun, 360; Grosvenor v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 17 N. Y. 391; Van Buren v. St. Joseph Ins. Co., 28 Mich. 398; Griswold v. American Central Ins. Co., 70 Mo. 654; State Ins. Co. 1. Maackens, 9 Vroom (N. J.), 564; Smith v. Union Ins. Co., 120 Mass. 90; Franklin Ins. Co. v. Wolff, 23 Ind. App. 549, 54 N. E. Rep. 772; Merwin v. Star Ins. Co., 7 Hun, 659, affd. without opinion, 72 N. Y. 603; Lasher v. Northwestern Ins. Co., 18 Hun, 98, 104; Brunswick Savings Inst. v. Commercial Union Assur. Co., 68 Me. 313; Fitchburg Savings Bank r. Amazon Ins. Co., 125 Mass. 431; Continental Ins. Co. v. Hulman, 92 Ill. 145; Humphrey 1. Hartford Ins. Co., 15 Blatchf. (U. S. Cir.) 504; Martin r. Franklin Ins. Co.,.9 Vroom (N. J.), 140; Warbasse v. Sussex Ins. Co., 13 Vroom (N. J.), 203; Baldwin v. Phenix Ins. Co., 60 N. H. 164; Loring v. Manufacturers' Ins. Co., 8 Gray (Mass.), 28; Perry v. Lorillard Ins. Co., 61 N. Y. 214; Frink v. Hampden Ins. Co., 45 Barb. 384; Heyl v. Ætna Ins. Co., Ala. 38 So. Rep. 118.
2. Dakin v. Liv., L. & G. Ins. Co., 77 N. Y. 600, affg. 13 Hun, 122; Cone v. Niagara Ins. Co., 60 N. Y. 619. The right of a party to whom loss is payable to maintain an action jointly with the insured or separately, or making him a party, is governed by local Codes, statutes or rules of practice; whether maintainable by real party or parties in interest or only the contractual party to use of others interested or otherwise governing the parties to an action. To exhaust this subject would be to extend the book beyond its reasonable scope and plan. The cases are collected and reviewed in Brown r. Commercial Ins. Co., 21 Apr. D. C. 325. And see Brannigan v. Jefferson Ins. Co., 102 Mo. App. 70, 76 S. W. Rep. 643 ; Anthony v. German Am. Ins. Co., 48 Mo. App. 65; Pitney v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 65 N. Y. 6; Lasher r. Northwestern Ins. Co., 18 Hun, 98 (N. Y.) ; Frink v. Hampden Ins. Co., 31 How. 30, 1 Abb. N. S. 343 (N. Y.); Solms 1. Rutgers Ins. Co., 3 Keyes, 416, 4 Abb. Ct. App. 279. (N. Y.); Patterson v. Triumph Ins. Co., 64 Me. 500; Martin v. Franklin Ins. Co., 9 Vroom, 140; McQueen v. Phænix Ins. Co., 4 Duval, 660 (Can. Sup.) ; Coates v. Penn. Ins. Co., 58 Md. 172; Chamberlain v. Ins. Co., 55 N. H. 249: Hadley v. Ins. Co., 55 N. H. 110; Hartford Ins. Co. t. Olcott, 97 Ill. 439; Westchester Ins. Co. v. Foster, 90 III. 121; St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 77 III. 598; Turner e. Quincy Ins. Co., 109 Mass. 568: Thatch v. Metropole Ins. Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 29; Lane v. Sun Ins. Co., 35 La. Ann. 224.
And see Mortgagor and Mortgagee, Rules 10 and 13.
Policy Assignable After Fire. After a fire, policy is assignable like any other chose in action;' the assignment need not be in writing; anything showing an intent to assign on one side and intent to receive on the other;- an order addressed to the insurance company to pay a part of the loss may operate as an equitable assignment or be evidence of it.3
1. Moffitt v. Phænix Ins. Co., 11 Ind. App. 233, 38 N. E. Rep. 835, 24 Ins. L. J. 154.
2. Bentley v. Standard Ins. Co., 40 W. Va. 729, 23 S. E. Rep. 584; Western Assur. Co. v. McCarthy, 18 Ind. App. 449, 48 N. E. Rep. 265, 27 Ins. L. J. 187.
3. Collins & A. Co. v. United States Ins. Co., Y Tex. Civ. App. 579, 27 S. W. Rep. 147.
Legal Representatives. RULE 1. Legal representatives included in “insured” by con
tract. 2. Who included by legal representatives. 3. Ordinary meaning of legal representatives — But not
so confined Receiver. 4. Effect of death of insured · Right to maintain action.
RULE 1. Legal Representatives Included in “ Insured” by Contract.
Wherever in the policy the word“ insured ” occurs, it includes the legal representatives of the insured.
This rule is imposed by above terms in the standard form of policy prescribed in: New York,
Wisconsin. * See note to “Duty to Save and Preserve Property,” Rule 1,
The standard form of policy prescribed in:
legal representatives." The New Hampshire form contains no reference to legal representatives.
The South Dakota form adds the words “and assigns” to Massachusetts form as alove, and it also contains the language in Rule 1.
In the States where no standard form is prescribed and other than those above named, the New York standard form is in general use.
The rule as above stated would seem to be the legal rule in event of death of the insured, independent of any such provision in the policy.
Lawrence v. Niagara Ins. Co., 2 App. Div. 267, 37 N. Y. Supp. 811, affd., on opinion below, 154 N. Y. 752.
Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Kinnier, 28 Gratt. (Va.) 88; Westchester Ins. Co. v. Dodge, 44 Mich. 420.
RULE 2. Who Included by Legal Representatives. Legal representatives include all persons, natural or artificial, who by operation of law stand in the place of and represent the interests of the assured ;' but does not include agents.?
1. Alford v. Consolidated Ins. Co., 88 Minn. 478, 93 N. W. Rep. 517.
2. Metzger v. Manchester Fire Assur. Ço., 102 Mich. 334, 63 N. W. Rep. 650.
RULE 3. Ordinary Meaning of Legal Representatives — But not so Con
fined — Receiver. Legal representatives ordinarily means the equivalent of executor or administrator, but may in absence of either include heirs, next of kin, legatees, devisees, or assignee;' or receiver of an insolvent corporation.”
1. Matthews v. American Central Ins. ('0., 154 N. Y. 449, -18 N. E. Rep. 751, affg. 9 App. Div. 339, 41 N. Y. Supp. 304;