The Westerly echo, & Pawcatuck advertiser. [volume] (Westerly, R.I.) 1854-1858, 1856-12-04
nay The following account Of suit
brought by Messrs. Hazard & Green,

1
the Peoples Mutual Fire Insurance
Company" of Worcester, Mass, for
recovery of amount of loss by FIRE
which occurred about one year since,
and tried in the Circuit Court at Provi-
dence, recently, we copy from the
Journal. The plaintiffs lost the case
on account of on alleged violation of the
application, which provides that shavngs
made in the WOOD shop should be re-
moved every day, and that no fire or
stove should be used in it. They (the
plaintiffs) not knowing that such
provisions were in the contract, did not
clear the shavings from the shop every
day and warmed it with stove. The
Journal says:
can action upon a Policy of Insur.
anee issued by the Peoples Mutual
Fire Insurance Company of Worcester
Samuel Hunt, Agent in Providence,
brought by Hazard & Greene, was
opened to the jury, aud a portion of the
defendants testimony exhibited, when
the plaintiffs discontinued, The Court
ruled that under the contract, embodied
in the form Of policy used by this office
the answers of the insured to the inter
rogatories appended to the application
must be regarded as aoarra"tes-a rul
ing of vital importance to policy hold
ers, as they may learn, when too late.
To every person who has given any
attention to the litigation of the five
years past in this State, between policy
holders and Insurance Companies, it
must seem passing strange that contracts
so important should be entered into so
heedlessly as, IN some cases, has been
shown they we're Or the nature and
ff,ct Of his contract, when his policy is
delivered to him, probably not one in
ten of the assured in this State know In
fact anything worth knowing. If nc
loss occur-al's we'll; but if a los
occur, and the Company see fit, from
any cause, to stand upon its contract
and dcmoud the pound OF flesh, lie
the policy holder at once deduct 80 o
: Is per cent from the claimed loss, ant
e settle, if he can. This were, in mos
f instances, wiser than to litigate tn
qaestion. But wiser course were, t
ascertain, before contracting, what tn
: contract completed, will be; what tn
t relative rights and duties of the partie
are, at each stage of the negotiation
and what these will be, under the con
> tract, when the casualty insured agains
d shall have happened. And then, bo,
e careless are sum of US in all that preced
the issuing of a policy! Sometimes
. the policy aud its conditions, never rea
- by the applicant sometimes the appl
e cation, signed in blank by bim, to b
. filed up by the Company's agent, (pe'
y chance some irresponsible straggler fro'
some far off State y most frequently th
answers to the Company's interrogat'
ries, written, or dictated, or modified b
" that agent, &c., &c. And yet,-tl
j. applicant bound by all these acts of tn
n agent, as his, the applicants own acts
the Company being free, if they choos
to avail themselves in defence, Of al
'e error, mistake, or breach Of warrant
e that under these circumstances, can
1T detected or made to appear. by eve
verbal criticism of the tweedle dun al
:, tweedledce species For such is the la
" in some Jurisdictions; and such it Mi
be said to-day, is the law in Rho'
Island, inasmuch as thus it was declar'
in the last case in which the point aro
"A case against the Conway lnsuran
Company recently tried in Kent Count
The Company's agent in tbiscase "
agent also of another Company. II
applicant himself prepared an apple
tion to this other Company, and the age
agreed to copy that application al
present it to the Conway Office. lnste
of copying it, however, the agent,
save labor, probably, signed in the nau
of the applicant, and forwarded to
Company an old application, made by
former owner Of the machinery insure
erasiug the signature of that form
owner, and the Conway Office poll
was issued. A loss occured-and
Company defend, because of alleg
III isrepr presentations or breaches of W;
ranty, the statements and answers
the application to them, not being in
points correct The applicant in {
case was not more confding than prol
bly, many of US have been in matters
insurance, within the week past, yet
will lose ais insurance Of $4,000, uul
the new trial for which he has NOV,
for misdircction on this point a
others, shall be granted.
We should advise policy holders
look we'll to their applications and polio