« PreviousContinue »
ity unless specifically insured, such as “patterns”' i “goods stored;'' ? and so a “building” does not include “store fixtures” when policy provides that there is no liability therefor unless specifically assumed.3
1. Johnson v. Niagara Ins. Co., 118 N. C. 643, 24 S. E. Rep. 424. And see Commonwealth v. Hide & Leather Ins. Co., 112 Mass. 136.
2. Home Ins. Co. v. Gwathmey, 82 Va. 923.
3. Commercial Ins. Co. v. Allen, 80 Ala. 571; Banyer v. Albany Ins. Co., 85 App. Div. 122, 83 N. Y. Supp. 65.
Knowledge of Agent. The application or construction of the written description when the meaning is doubtful, uncertain, or ambiguous may be governed by the knowledge or declarations of the agent when he issued the policy;' but not when the language is plain and the effect would be to make another and different contract.2
1. Benedict v. Ocean Ins. Co., 1 Daly, 8, affd., 31 N. Y. 389; Aurora Ins. Co. v. Eddy, 55 Ill. 213; Pettit v. State Ins. Co., 41 Minn. 299, 43 N. W. Rep. 378; James River Ins. Co. v. Merritt, 47 Ala. 387; Greenwich Ins. Co. v. State, Ark. 84 S. W. Rep. 1025. And see Abraham v. North German Ins. Co., 40 Fed. Rep. 717; Hartford Ins. Co. v. Moore, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 644, 36 S. W. Rep. 146.
2. Sanders v. Cooper, 115 N. Y. 279, 22 N. E. Rep. 212; Franklin Ins. Co. v. Martin, 11 Vroom (N. J.), 568; Holmes r. Charlestown Ins. Co., 10 Metc. (Mass.) 211; Newmarket Sav. Bank v. Royal Ins. Co., 150 Mass. 374, 23 N. E. Rep. 210: Thomas v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 162 Mass. 29, 37 N. E. Rep. 672.
Description Governed by Nature and Usual Methods of Busi
The construction of the written description is governed by the nature and usual methods of the business in which the insured or described property is employed, as the insurance company is presumed to have had these considerations in mind when they wrote and issued the policy.
Collins v. Charlestown Ins. Co., 76 Mass. 155; Mayor v. Exchange Ins. Co., 9 Bosw. 424; Mayor v. Hamilton Ins. Co., 10 Bosw. 537, affd., 39 N. Y. 45; Washington Ins. Co. v. Davison, 30 Md. 91; Hall v. Insurance Co. of N. A., 58 N. Y. 292; St. Nicholas Ins. Co. v. Merchants’ Ins. Co., 11 Hun, 108; Wheeler v. Traders' Ins. Co., 62 N. H. 326, 450; Plinsky v. Germania Ins. Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 47; Yoch v. Home Ins. Co., 111 Cal. 503; Kenton Ins. Co. v. Downs, 90 Ky. 236; Maril v. Connecticut Ins. Co., 95 Ga. 604; Aurora Ins. Co. v. Eddy, 55 Ill. 213; Carlin v. Western Ins. Co., 57 Md. 515; Hartwell v. California Ins. Co., 84 Me. 524; Mooney v. Howard Ins. Co., 138 Mass. 375; Buchanan v. Exchange Ins. Co., 61 N. Y. 26; Wilson Drug Co. v. Phænix Ins. Co., 110 N. C. 350; Fraim v. National Ins. Co., 170 Pa. St. 151; Mascott v. Granite Ins. Co., 68 Vt. 253.
Limitation as to Presumption.
The presumption as to knowledge of the company as to use of certain articles in business insured extends only to such as are necessarily and usually used.
McFarland v. Peabody Ins. Co., 6 W. Va. 425.
Usage or Custom.
The construction or application of the written description may be affected or governed by usage or custom.
Fowler v. Ætna Ins. Co., y Wend. 270; Wall v. Howard Ins. Co., 14 Barb. 383; Daniels v. Hudson River Ins. Co., 12 Cush. (Mass.) 416; St. Nicholas Ins. Co. v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 11 Hun, 108; Mooney v. Howard Ins. Co., 138 Mass. 375. And see Texas Banking Co. v. Hutchins, 53 Tex. 61. And see Construction;" “Usage and Custom.”
RULE 12. Stocks of Merchandise Property Under General Description.
Stock of merchandise is not limited to that on hand when policy issues, but is replaced and covered by subsequent purchases or additions; all that is in the store or building at time of fire, answering to the description in the policy, is covered,' and so where policy insures “ horses, oxen, young cattle, and sheep;" 2 or “grain, malt, or grain in process of malting;" 3 wagons, sleighs, and harness; ”4 farm implements."
1. Manchester Ins. Co. v. Feibelman, 118 Ala. 308, 23 So. Rep. 759, 27 Ins. L. J. 855; Peoria Ins. Co. v. Anaporo, 51 III. 283; American Central Ins. Co. v. Rothschild, 82 Ill. 166; Planters' Ins. Co. v. Engle, 52 Md. 468; Bradbury v. Fire Assoc., 80 Me. 396; Hoffman v. Ætna Ins. Co., 32 N. Y. 405; Hooper v. Hudson River Ins. Co., 17 N. Y. 424.
2. Tomkins v. Hartford Ins. Co., 22 App. Div. 380, 49 N. Y. Supp. 184.
3. Coleman v. Phænix Ins. Co., 3 App. Div. 65, 38 N. Y. Supp. 985; Johnston v. Phelps Co. Ins. Co., Nebr. 102 N. W. Rep. 72.
4. Beyer v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co., 112 Wis. 138, 88 N. W. Rep. 57.
5. Johnson v. Farmers' Ins. Co., Iowa, , 102 N. W. Rep. 502.
Building and Addition,
Where policy describes a building “and addition," the word “addition" is not extended by construction to apply to another distinct and independent building twenty feet distant;' nor to an independent building in the rear, although it is possible to crawl from the win
dows of one to the other, but no other connection between the two, and one in rear being used for a different purpose than specified in the policy; but it may be otherwise when the building claimed to be an addition is occupied the same, and nothing else existing as an "addition;"3 or when the buildings are connected by a shaft transmitting power and spout for carrying shavings, although separated by a roadway;" or where the buildings are connected by boards nailed to both;5 or where there is ambiguity or uncertainty in the description.
1. Franklin Ins. Co. v. Hellerick, Ку. 49 S. W. Rep. 1066, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1703.
2. Rickerson v. German-American Ins. Co., 85 Hun, 266, 32 N. Y. Supp. 1026. Subsequent appeal, 6 App. Div. 550. And
6 see Rule 6.
3. Phænix Ins. Co. v. Martin, 16 So. Rep. 417, 24 Ins. L. J. 319 (Miss.).
4. Home Ins. Co. v. Roe, 71 Wis. 33, 36 N. W. Rep. 594.
5. Cargill v. Millers’ Ins. Co., 33 Minn. 90. And see Allen v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 34 La. Ann. 763.
6. Cummins v. German-American Ins. Co., 197 Pa. St. 62, 46 Atl. Rep. 902. And see Rule 6, and cases cited. See also “ Location.”
Building and Addition Attached.
A description of building and “additions attached” will cover and include another building, mainly on rear of an adjacent lot, but extending over and against the rear of the main building two inches, when occupied by the assured in business insured, and being only addition to answer the description.
Maisel v. Fire Assoc., 59 App. Div. 461, 69 N. Y. Supp. 181.
RULE 15. Limitation upon Permission for Addition. A permission for “ additions, alterations, and repairs " is limited in its application to the property certainly described in the policy, and cannot be extended by construction or admission of parol evidence to a separate building not included in or covered by the description;' a permit may in terms cover the additions. When description may be construed as extending to entire plant, the word “ additions ” refers to additions to the plant, and includes new buildings constructed thereon.3
1. Arlington Mfg. Co. v. Norwich Union Ins. Co., 107 Fed. Rep. 662, 46 C. C. A, 542.
2. Meigs v. London Assur. Co., 126 Fed. Rep. 781.
3. Arlington Co. v. Colonial Assur. Co., 180 N. Y. 337, 73 V. E. Rep. 34.
RULE 16. Adjoining and Communicating as Applied to Buildings. The words “ adjoining and communicating," as ap
” plied to buildings, must be construed to correspond with the intention of the parties, to be ascertained from the whole instrument, the nature of the property to which the language of the policy is to be applied, the purpose for which property is ordinarily to be used, its situation, and the manner in which it is usually kept.
Marsh v. Concord Ins. Co., 71 N. H. 253, 51 Atl. Ren. 898.
For construction of the word “group," as applied to buildings in a series of items in a policy upon an entire plant, see A. A. Griffing Co. v. Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co., N. J. L. 54 Atl. Rep. 409.
Mill Building and Additions. A description of property as a mill building and
all additions adjoining or communicating," covers and includes an engine and dryhouse, used and owned