« PreviousContinue »
new locations; but the company shall not, in any case of removal, whether to one or more locations, be liable beyond the proportion that the amount hereby insured shall bear to the total insurance on the whole property at the time of fire, whether the same cover in new location or not.
This rule is imposed by above terms in the standard form of policy prescribed in: New York,
New Hampshire, prohibits removal and provides that if removal of property“ be necessary for the preservation of the property from fire, the policy shall be valid without the assent of the company for five days thereafter.”
In South Dakota form the same, except the words “ or water," are added after the word “fire.”
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 1. Description must apply to property.
2. Addition of words after fire.
tion and printed conditions.
* See note to “Duty to Save and Preserve Property,” Rule 1, RULE 9. Description governed by nature and usual methods of
business – Presumption. 10. Limitation as to presumption. 11. Usage or custom. 12. Stocks of merchandise. 13. Building and addition. 14. Building and addition attached. 15. Limitation upon permission for addition. 16. Adjoining and communicating as applied to buildings. 17. Mill building and additions. 18. Adjoining and communicating as a question of fact. 19. Consent to addition does not increase amount of in
surance. 20. Effect of moving part of building. 21. Certain described building does not include one sub
sequently built. 22. Building includes connecting walls. 23. Knowledge of company — Wrong description may be
immaterial. 24. Building includes permanent fixtures. 25. Boiler, engine, and machinery. 26. Intention as affecting permanent fixtures. 27. Fixtures of a tenant. 28. Store fixtures. 29. Merchandise and packages not specifically insured. 30. Construction of description broad and liberal. 31. When language plain and clear, construction not
forced to favor assured.
Description Must Apply to Property.
The description must apply to the property damaged or destroyed and for which claim is made;' and the property must have been in existence to render the contract of insurance valid.2
1. Martin v. Farmers' Ins. Co., 84 Iowa, 516, 51 N. W. Rep. 29; Goddard v. Monitor Ins. Co., 108 Mass. 56.
2. Clark v. Insurance Co. of N. A., 89 Me. 26, 35 Atl. Rep. 1008, 35 L. R. A. 276.
The addition of words to the description, made by the assured after a fire, making it cover and include certain articles, is such a material change or alteration that unless done by the authority or consent of the company it voids the policy.
Phænix Ins. Co. v. McKernan, 100 Ky. 97, 37 S. W. Rep. 490.
Description False in Part Only.
False part of a description will be disregarded, if enough remains to identify the property.
Hatch v. New Zealand Ins. Co., 67 Cal. 122; Home Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 48 Tex. 622.
Repugnancy or Inconsistency Between Written Description and
The written part or description inserted in the policy controls the printed conditions, which if repugnant or inconsistent must give way to such part or description" but not where they can be construed as consistent and without conflict.2
1. Mascott v. Granite State Ins. Co., 68 Vt. 253, 35 Atl. Rep. 75; Tubb v. Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co., 106 Ala. 651, 17 So. Rep. 615, 25 Ins. L. J. 365; Yoch v. Home Mut. Ins. Co., 111 Cal. 503, 44 Pac. Rep. 189; Phenix Ins. Co. v. Flemming, 65 Ark. 54, 44 S. W. Rep. 464, 27 Ins. L. J. 581; Bryant v. Poughkeepsie Ins. Co., 17 N. Y. 200; Hall v. Insurance Co., 58 N. Y. 292; Steinbach v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 54 N. Y. 90; Corrigan ".
Lycoming Ins. Co., 53 Vt. 418; Whitmarsh v. Conway Ins. Co., 16 Gray (Mass.), 359; Franklin Ins. Co. v. Updegraff, 43 Pa. St. 350; Archer v. Merchants’ Ins. Co., 43 Mo. 434; Phænix Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 5 Minn. 492; Russell v. Manufacturers & Builders' Ins. Co., 50 Minn. 409, 52 N. W. Rep. 906; Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Van Os, 63 Miss. 431. And see Rule 6, and cases cited.
2. Steinbach v. Relief Ins. Co., 13 Wall. (U. S.) 183; Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Gunther, 116 U. S. 113; Birmingham Ins. Co. v. Kroegher, 83 Pa. St. 64; Lancaster Ins. Co. v. Lenheim, 89 Pa. St. 497; Cobb v. Insurance Co. of N. A., 17 Kans. 492; Beer v. Forest City Ins. Co., 39 Ohio St. 109. And see
Doubtful Meaning - Admission of Parol Evidence.
Where description of property is of doubtful interpretation, evidence is admissible of extraneous facts or of surrounding circumstances which will place the court in the situation of the parties when the contract was made, in order to enable it to be read understandingly; but this rule does not apply where the policy is certain in its language or terms.
Arlington Mfg. Co. v. Norwich Union Ins. Co., 107 Fed. Rep. 662, 46 C. C. A. 512; Cummins v. German-American Ins. Co., 197 Pa. St. 62, 46 Atl. Rep. 902; Connecticut Ins. Co. v. Hilbrant (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. Rep. 558.
Description Uncertain in Application or Ambiguous.
If the language used in the description is uncertain in its application, or is ambiguous, parol evidence is admissible in aid of the interpretation and application; as for instance, when applied to buildings, or the policy describes the subject of the insurance as stock in trade
or "such articles as are usually kept” in a certain trade or occupation, or as to what articles are included in a generic term or word, indicating a class, of property,' it is ordinarily a question of fact;? but parol evidence is not admissible to change or alter the contract.*
1. (See cases cited under Rule 4.) Saunders v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 39 App. Div. 631, 57 N. Y. Supp. 683; Rickerson v. German-American Ins. Co., 6 App. Div. 550; Rickerson v. Hartford Ins. Co., 149 N. Y. 307; Pfeifer v. National Ins. Co., 62 Minn. 536, 64 N. W. Rep. 1018, 25 Ins. L. J. 134; Boak Fish Co. v. Manchester Fire Assur. Co., 84 Minn. 419, 87 N. W. Rep. 932; Graybill v. Penn Township Ins. Assoc., 170 Pa. St. 75, 32 Atl. Rep. 632; Stover v. Elliot Ins. Co., 45 Me. 175; Bowman v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 59 N. Y. 521; Snow v. Carr, 61 Ala. 363; Wheeler v. Traders' Ins. Co., 62 N. H. 326; Niagara Ins. Co. v. De Graff, 12 Mich. 124. And see Plinsky v. Germania Ins. Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 47; German-American Ins. Co. v. Commercial Ins. Co., 95 Ala. 469; Menk v. Home Ins. Co., 76 Cal. 50; Phænix Ins. Co. v. Favorite, 49 Ill. 259; Davis v. Anchor Ins. Co., 96 Iowa, 70; Westfield Cigar Co. v. Insurance Co. of N. A., 165 Mass. 541; Buchanan v. Exchange Ins. Co., 61 N. Y. 26; Eddy Foundry v. Farmers’ Ins. Co., 5 R. I. 426; Continental Ins. Co. v. Pruitt, 65 Tex. 125; Home Ins. Co. v. Roe, 71 Wis. 33.
2. Tesson v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 40 Mo. 33; Niagara Ins. Co. v. De Graff, supra; Bassell v. American Ins. Co., 2 Hughes, 531 (U. S. Cir.); Hewitt v. Watertown Ins. Co., 55 Iowa, 323; James River Ins. Co. v. Merritt, 47 Ala. 387; Carrigan v. Lycoming Ins. Co., 53 Vt. 418.
3. Lancaster Mills v. Merchants Co., 89 Tenn. 1, 14 S. W. Rep. 317; Beer v. Insurance Co., 39 Ohio St. 109.
General Words Controlled by Specific Condition.
General words of description as “articles usually kept," etc., or held in trust or on commission,” etc., cannot be construed to cover and include property as to which the policy in terms provides there is no liabil