Case ID: ohio-cc-ns_11/html/0193-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

REASONABLENESS OF REQUIREMENT AS TO INSURANCE COVERING CHATTEL PROPERTY.
    Circuit Court of Hamilton County.
    National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, v. John Kneidel, Jr.
    Decided, June 20, 1908.
    
      Fire Insurance — Covering Chattel Property — Failure to Endorse Mortgage on Policy — Reasonableness of Such a Requirement — Policy not Enforcible in the Absence of Fraud or Mistake.
    
    The provisions in a policy of fire insurance covering chattel'property, that the policy is rendered void by the encumbering of the property with a mortgage, consent to which on the part of the company is not endorsed thereon, is a reasonable and binding provision, and in the absence of evidence that the omission of the endorsement was through fraud or mistake, an action for recovery on the policy can not be maintained.
    
      W. T. Porter, for plaintiff in error.
    
      M. C. Lyhins, C. D. Robertson and Burch, Peters & Matthews, contra.
    Swing, P. J.; Giffen, J., and Smith, J., concur.
   This action is here on error to the judgment of the superior court. Kneidel brought his action in that court against the National Fire Insurance Company on a fire insurance policy, and recovered a judgment. To the petition is attached a copy of the policy of insurance sued on. The policy contained these provisions:

"If the subject of insurance be personal property and become encumbered by a chattel mortgage the policy shall be void. * * * This policy is made and accepted subject to the foregoing stipulations and conditions, together with such other provisions, agreements or conditions as may be endorsed hereon or added hereto, and no officer or agent or other representative of this company shall have power to waive any provision or condition of this policy, except such as by the terms of this policy may be the subject of agreements, may be endorsed hereon or added hereto, and as to such provisions and conditions no officer, agent or representative shall have such power or be deemed or held to have waived such provisions or conditions unless such waiver, if any, shall be written upon or attached hereto, nor shall any privilege or permission affecting the insurance under the policy exist or be claimed by the insured unless so written or attached hereto.' ’

The defendant filed an answer alleging that at the time the policy was issued there was a chattel mortgage on the property covered by the policy and that it was not endorsed on the policy. Plaintiff filed a reply admitting the existence of the chattel mortgage, and that it was not endorsed on the policy, but alleged that at the time the policy was taken out that plaintiff had informed the agent of the company that there was a chattel mortgage on the property, and on the trial the plaintiff introduced evidence tending to prove this allegation.

It is settled law that the conditions contained in this policy are reasonable and are binding on the parties when made. So that the case presented by -the record is one where plaintiff sues on a policy which contains a provision that if the property insured is mortgaged, it is to be void, unless the fact of the mortgage is endorsed on the policy. There was a chattel mortgage on the property, and it was not endorsed on the policy. By the express terms of the policy such a state of facts-rendered the policy void. No claim was made, and no evidence was introduced tending to show that the endorsement provided for in the policy was omitted by the fraud or mistake of the defendant company, or that the company agreed to place such an endorsement on the policy. It is not sought to reform the policy, but a recovery is sought on the terms of the policy, -and it is admitted that -the terms of the policy are reasonable and binding on the parties. By the terms of the policy it was to be void if there was a chattel- mortgage on the property insured, unless the fact was endorsed on the policy, and it is admitted that -there was a chattel mortgage -on the property and that it was not -endorsed on -the policy. It follows that the- plaintiff, Kneidel, can not recover.

Judgment -reversed, and -the facts being admitted, judgment will be entered for defendant.