« PreviousContinue »
as it had been established by proper and sufficient agreement between the parties before the fire.
Belt v. American Central Ins. Co., 29 App. Div. 546, affd., 163 N. Y. 555, without opinion.
Company May Recover Back Money Paid on Misrepresentation
Money paid to the insured in settlement induced by misrepresentation or fraud may be recovered by the insurance company.
Western Assur. Co. v. Towle, 65 Wis. 247; Merchants’ Ins. Co. v. Abbott, 131 Mass. 397; Johnson v. Continental Ins. Co., 39 Mich. 33; Berkshire Ins. Co. v. Sturgis, 13 Gray (Mass.), 177; McConnell v. Delaware Ins. Co., 183 Ill. 228; Nebraska Ins. Co. v. Segard, 29 Nebr. 354, 45 N. W. Rep. 681.
Adjustment of Loss — Legal Business - Right to Follow it in
An insurance company owing a debt to a citizen of a State, although not authorized to transact its business in such State, cannot be restricted by statute from sending its agent or adjuster to such State, to ascertain the amount of the loss or debt, preparatory to payment. Adjustment is a legal business, and an adjuster has the right to follow it in any State where his employment calls him.
French v. People, 6 Colo. 311, 40 Pac. Rep. 463; People v. Gilbert, 44 Hun, 522.
Rule otherwise in Mississippi, Moses v. State, 65 Miss. 56.
TITLE 1. Location.
RULE 1. Location of property as imposed by contract.
2. Property must be in place specified.
tion. 18. Removal of property endangered by fire as governed by contract.
Location of Property as Imposed by Contract. The insurance is confined or limited to the property described in the policy, “ while located and contained as described therein, and not elsewhere."
This rule is imposed by above terms in the standard form of policy prescribed in: New York,
In the States where no standard form is prescribed, and other than those above named, the New York standard form is in general use.
RULE 2. Property Must be in Place Specified. There can be no recovery for property destroyed in any other place than that specified and described.
Davison v. London & Lancashire Ins. Co., 189 Pa. St. 132, 42 Atl. Rep. 2, 28 Ins. L. J. 152; L'Anse v. Fire Assoc., 119 Mich. 127, 78 N. W. Rep. 465, 28 Ins. L. J. 369; Benton v. Farmers' Ins. Co., 102 Mich. 281, 60 N. W. Rep. 691; Lakings v. Phænix Ins. Co., 94 Iowa, 476, 62 N. W. Rep. 783, 24 Ins. L. J. 545; Green v. Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co., 91 Iowa, 615, 60 N. W. Rep. 189, 24 Ins. L. J. 180; British-American Assur. Co. v. Miller, 91 Tex. 414, 44 S. W. Rep. 60, 27 Ins. L. J. 538; Birnstein v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., 83 App. Div. 436, 82 N. Y. Supp. 140; Saunders v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 2 App. Div. 223, 37 N. Y. Supp. 769; Bahr v. National Ins. Co., 80 Hun, 309, 29 N. Y. Supp. 1031; Leventhal v. Home Ins. Co., 32 Misc. 685, 66 N. Y. Supp. 502; Phenix Ins. Co. v. Stewart, 53 Ill. App. 273; Lyons v. Providence-Washington Ins. Co., 14 R. I. 109 ; Eaton v. Phænix Ins. Co., 15 Ky. L. R. 441; Bryce v. Lorillard Ins. Co., 55 N. Y. 240; Maryland Ins. Co. v. Gusdorf, 43 Md. 506; Bradbury v. Fire Assoc., 80 Me. 396, 15 Atl. Ren. 34; Farmers' Ins. Assoc. v. Kryder, 5 Ind. App. 430; Boyd v. Mississippi Home Ins. Co., 75 Miss. 47, 21 So. Rep. 708; Ætna Ins.
* See note to “Duty to Save and Preserve Property,” Rule 1,
Co. v. Brannon, Tex. Civ. App. , 81 S. W. Rep. 560. See Rule 9.
Under the old forms it was occasionally held that the words “contained in ” were not limited in their application to specific place described, and that property might be elsewhere covered according to the natural and ordinary use. Niagara Ins. Co. r. Elliot, 85 Va. 962, and cases cited. And see Boyd v. Mississippi Home Ins. Co., 75 Miss. 47, 21 So. Rep. 708.
RULE 3 Block of Buildings, Different Numbers but One Entrance.
Description of goods as contained in block “ situate Nos. 82-90 .... Street
may cover and include goods in loft or a story of No. 80, where only entrance is at No. 92;' but otherwise where the other building has independent means of access, and separated by independent walls.2
1. Westfield Cigar Co. v. Insurance Co. of N. A., 169 Mass. 382, 47 N. E. Rep. 1026. And see Rickerson v. Hartford Ins. Co., 149 N. Y. 307.
2. Sampson v. Security Ins. Co., 133 Mass. 49.
RULE 4. Dwelling and Additions Mill Sheds. Where policy describes and covers “ dwelling and additions thereto” it continues to cover a kitchen addition still used for the same purpose, removed to a distance of thirty feet; the words “ located and contained” in Rule 1 may be construed as applying to personal property only;1 the words “ belonging with the dwelling-house ” may be construed to apply to a building 189 feet distant from the dwelling. “Mill sheds” may be construed to cover sheds at distance from the mill, and not limited to those projecting from the mill itself.:
1. Hannon v. Hartford Ins. Co., 41 App. Div. 226, 58 N. Y. Supp. 549.
2. Robinson v. Pennsylvania Ins. Co., 87 Me. 399, 32 Atl. Rep. 996, 25 Ins. L. J. 56. See also “Description."
3. Wolverine Lumber Co. v. Palatine Ins. Co., Mich. 102 N. W. Rep. 991.
Effect of Separation into Items.
Where policy is divided into separate items as $.... In one-story frame metal roof building situate on a certain lot or plot, $. ..... on boiler and engine contained in above-described building," $. ..... machinery, tools, and patterns and other tools, without any limitation as to building or location as in previous item,- it covers patterns in a pattern-house, a part of the plant, on the lot or plot but separate and distinct from the building described in the first item.
Ætna Ins. Co. v. Strout, 16 Ind. App. 160, 44 N. E. Rep. 934.
General Description May Cover Entire Plant. Where policy insures two separate buildings of a plant, one a foundry and machine shop, and the other a pattern shop, the latter being used for storage of the patterns when not required for use in the machine shop; and patterns described in the policy as being in the pattern shop, but the description in the policy of all the property insured ending with “ all situate corner of certain streets,” it covers patterns destroyed while in use in the machine shop, although the fire does not extend to the pattern shop.
McKeesport Machine Co. v. Ben Franklin Ins. Co., 173 Pa. St. 53, 34 Atl. Rep. 16. And see Washington Ins. Co. v. Davison, 30 Md. 91.
RULE 7. Factory not Necessarily Confined to One Building. Where the description covers goods or stock in a “ factory," the word “ factory” is not necessarily to