work (Globe Acc. Ins. Co. v. Helwig, 13 Ind. App. 539, 41 N. E. 976, 55 Am. St. Rep. 247). The insured cannot, however, show the value of his time unless it is pleaded (Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Thornton, 119 Ga. 455, 46 S. E. 678). Likewise, where the insured was a physician, evidence that a number of prescriptions made by him during his alleged disability were given without charge was inadmissible, as the issue is not what he charged for services, but whether he was able to perform them (Preferred Acc. Ins. Co. of New York v. Gray, 123 Ala. 482, 26 South. 517).

If, in an action on a policy fixing the maximum limit of the company's liability if the accident or death results from unnecessary or negligent exposure to obvious danger, it appears that the deceased, in crossing railroad tracks to reach the platform for the purpose of taking passage on a train, was killed by another train approaching in an opposite direction, in the absence of affirmative proof of negligence it cannot be assumed that the insured exposed himself necessarily or negligently to an obvious danger (North American Acc. Ins. Co. v. Gulick, 25 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 395).

Whether the insured is totally and permanently incapacitated from performing manual labor is a question of fact for the jury (Grand Lodge Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen v. Orrell, 109 Ill. App. 422). So, too, whether insured, when injured, was engaged in a more hazardous occupation than that in which he was insured, is a question for the jury (Fox v. Masons' Fraternal Acc. Ass'n of America, 96 Wis. 390, 71 N. W. 363).

XXIV. CAUSE OF LOSS AND EXTENT OF LIABILITY— GUARANTY AND INDEMNITY INSURANCE.

1. Risk and cause of loss.

(a) Employers' liability insurance.

(b) Fidelity insurance.

(c) Credit insurance.

(d) Title insurance.

(e) Other forms of guaranty insurance.

2. Extent of liability.

(a) Employers' liability insurance.

(b) Same-When liability accrues.

(c) Same-Liability to person injured.

(d) Fidelity insurance.

(e) Credit insurance.

(f) Title insurance.

(g) Other forms of guaranty insurance.

1. RISK AND CAUSE OF LOSS.

(a) Employers' liability insurance.

(b) Fidelity insurance.

(c) Credit insurance.

(d) Title insurance.

(e) Other forms of guaranty insurance.

(a) Employers' liability insurance.

The questions presented in relation to risk and cause of loss in employers' liability insurance are very similar to those arising in accident insurance. The cause of injury or death must usually be accidental, and the person injured must have been engaged in work connected with the occupation or business of the employer as described in the policy. In addition to these, however, there are special forms of these policies which cover liabilities for injuries. to persons not employés. As to these, the limitations as to occupation cannot be said to apply in the strict sense, though the injury must be caused by some one in the employ of the insured, or by some structure or apparatus connected with the insured's business.

The cause of injury must, of course, be one of the risks assumed in the policy. Thus, under a clause insuring against "personal injury and loss of human life," for which the insured is liable in damages, and "which shall be caused by said boilers, or any ma

B.B.INS.-208

chinery of whatever kind connected therewith and operated thereby," the insured cannot recover the amount it has paid out for loss of life and injuries caused by the explosion in a starch kiln, caused by fire, though the kilns were heated by steam pipes connected with the boilers (American Steam-Boiler Ins. Co. v. Chicago Sugar Refining Co., 57 Fed. 294, 6 C. C. A. 336, 21 L. R. A. 572, reversing 48 Fed. 198). It has, however, been held that kidney disease produced in a servant by handling infected rags in the discharge of her duties was within a policy insuring against loss from liability on account of bodily injuries accidentally suffered (Columbia Paper Stock Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 78 S. W. 320, 104 Mo. App. 157).

In analogy to the rule in accident insurance, a policy insuring against loss from liability to any person accidentally sustaining bodily injuries while traveling on a railroad under circumstances which would impose on the insured a common-law or statutory liability for such injuries does not indemnify the insured against a loss sustained by reason of a person being instantly killed without conscious suffering (Worcester & S. St. Ry. Co. v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 62 N. E. 364, 180 Mass. 263, 57 L. R. A. 629, 91 Am. St. Rep. 275).

In Fuller Bros. Toll Lumber & Box Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 94 Mo. App. 490, 68 S. W. 222, the schedule annexed to the policy contained blanks to be filled in with the number and description of the elevators in the employer's factory, and the policy provided that it should cover no loss from injuries from elevators unless enumerated. The application was filled out by insurer's general agent, who knew of the existence of the elevators, and he was told by the insured that he wanted everything covered save injuries to teamsters. The policy was written "on all employés in the factory." It was held that, as the insurer had treated a previous accident caused by an elevator as covered, this was the construction of the policy by the parties, rendering the insurer liable for all injuries caused by the elevators.

An employé brought an action against his employer to recover for injuries received November 22, 1892, and for other injuries received January 20, 1893, asking in each paragraph for $5,000 damages, and recovered a judgment for $5,000 on a verdict in his favor, not designating the injury for which the damages were awarded. An indemnity insurance company had insured such employer against liability for injuries to an employé after the time of the first injury, but before the second. It was held, in an action on such

policy, that the judgment was insufficient to show that it was rendered on the injury covered by such policy. Reigler v. Sherlock, 49 S. W. 1080, 66 Ark. 215.

Where the insurance is to cover injuries to employés, the employé injured must have been engaged in work connected with the described business, in order to render the insurer liable. Thus, in Wallman v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 87 Mo. App. 677, the policy described the employer's business and the machinery used therein. as that usual in buildings occupied for wholesaling dry goods and general merchandise. Afterwards the insured put in machinery for polishing rusted cutlery, and hired an adept polisher, who was injured in running said machinery, and had recovered damages therefor of the plaintiff. It was held that the risk was not included in the policy, and the company was not liable to indemnify the insured for his liability to the employé. In Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Phoenix Mfg. Co., 100 Fed. 604, 40 C. C. A. 614, the policy provided for indemnity against loss from liability for damages on account of injuries to employés whose wages were included in its pay roll, the premium being based on the total amount of the pay roll for the year. The application, which was filled up by the general agent, described insured's business as "manufacturers and erectors of machinery, showcases, and office fixtures, and general woodwork." Certain carpenters employed by the insured, whose wages were included in the general pay roll, were injured while engaged in tearing down an old building preparatory to the erection of a new one on the site. It was held that it was proper to submit to the jury the question whether the term "general woodwork," as commonly understood, or as agreed upon by the parties, covered the work in which the men were engaged when injured. In Kelley v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., 97 Mo. App. 623, 71 S. W. 711, the insurer agreed to indemnify a partnership against any judgment that might be rendered against it because of its liability for injuries to an employé. An employé and one of the partners were experimenting with a machine belonging to the firm, when the employé was injured. A verdict in favor of the employé, and against the firm, was obtained, but was set aside as to one of the partners. The court took the position that while the negligent act of the individual member may become the act of the partnership, when committed in due prosecution of the partnership business, in order to render the insurer liable it must be made to appear that the neg

ligent act of the individual member was such an act as made it the act of the partnership.

A phase of this question has arisen in several cases where the employé was injured while making alterations or repairs in the building of the employer, or while engaged in constructing a new building. In People's Ice Co. v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., 161 Mass. 122, 36 N. E. 754, the application by an ice company. for a policy of insurance against loss to it from injuries to its employés stated that its business was ice dealer at a particular place named, where it was cutting ice; that "the operations carried on by the work people are cutting and hauling ice." The application was made a part of the policy which was issued. It provided that the sum to be paid the employer should be for injuries to any employé in its service, "while employed in the employer's work, in any of the occupations, or in any of the places, mentioned on the schedule hereto." The schedule gave such occupations as "all operations connected with the business of ice dealers." It was held that the insurer was not liable for losses paid the employés for injuries received while erecting a new icehouse at the place stated in such application, though it was customary for ice dealers to erect their own icehouses. On the other hand, in Hoven v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., 93 Wis. 201, 67 N. W. 46, 32 L. R. A. 388, it was held that a policy indemnifying an employer from liability for claims for personal injuries to its employés while engaged in "operations connected with the business of iron and steel works" covers injuries received by an employé by reason of the construction of a building by the employer for the use of his business. In Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Lone Oak Cotton Oil & Gin Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 80 S. W. 541, the policy covered a loss from liability for damages on account of injuries suffered by any employé of the insured while on duty within the factory, shop, or yards mentioned in the schedule, in and during the operation of the trade or business described in the schedule. The schedule described the kind of business the insured was engaged in, and provided that the insurer should not be liable for any injury to any person unless he was "on duty at the time of the accident in an occupation described" at the place mentioned. The policy excluded from its scope additions to or alterations in any building, but permitted ordinary repairs. A carpenter who had been employed in the construction of the plant and in installing the machinery, which had been fully completed, had been placed on the insured's roll of operators, his