New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-12-04
THE COURTS.
AN IMPORTANT INSURANCE DECISION.
DUPLICATES TO BIZ FURNISHED BY THE INSURED ~
INVOICES ARE BURyED--A POSSIBLE CHECK on


AN IMPORTANT INSURANCE DECISION.
DUPLICATES TO DIX FURNISHED BY THE INSURED ~
INVOICES ARE BURSED--A POSSIBLE CHECK on
LEGENDARY ACTS.
The Court of Appeals has just rendered q
decision I'm favor OF tho Commercial Fro Insurance Com
pany that will be read with much interest in insurance
circles. Below ia the text OF the decision
In addition to the usual ana ordinary preliminary
proofs required TO be furnished as CONDITION Pecene
to the right Of tho insured 10 indemnity against loss @
1.-The assured shall II required produce copies OF az
bills and invoices the originals OF which have bcen LOST
The defendants undertaking Ia to pay the loss or damage
occasoned by the pers insured against within % uys
after due proof thereof In conformity 70 the condoms
annexed To the policy a full compliance win TINS CON
dition was Indispensable 10 right Of action upon quo
policy, unless compliance was impossible or - Was
waived by the insurers. Worscy agt Wood L. H. 'lVi
Columbian Ins. Co. agt. Lawrence, Peters; o1,oo,
Jobe agt Brooklyn Fire ms Co.. % Barb Az Jennings
ms Co. 50 ~ Y 502) The books and papers OF the IN
sured Including the original invoices ana Dills OF pr
surers the ght certified copies They were distinctly
specially called for by the letter Of the agent o. te
DEFENDANTS and the other Insurers OF Dec 3l iSoo,
the insured having the 9th Of the same month Deeh
formally advised that complete proofs OF loss, as re-
auYed by said policies" must be made 1ney we're not
furnished, and the 18th OF January In reply 10 an
ovasiye letter from the insured he was referred
December and told that the whole would
be required under oath, and on tne 2on
dupc ate copies Of Invoices Of goods purchased IN 1907
and 1868. The request was not compiled WILL nor Was
NJ, fbcs nroof was shown IL will not b assumed that
The merchants OF whom goods had Deen DOush i1t n
20 months preceding the fire not Known couid not
found would b. unable " furnish duplicates % ,no
bills OF goods sold the insured duIing thos9 nlonis;
been complied With, that compliance was VI
that the defendant had waisei H. me con III c ~,
that this part OF the condition had been waVcd Di,
had that been the contention at tho trial 1t would nave
been question OF fact for the jury. Tie aise was O
tried upon theory Tho Judge at Circuit
the jury that the insured was NOS bound as d ss
precedent right or action upon the poilcy auu -
bart OF the preliminary proofs TO linsh cefuneu OF
funcate cop, of the bills of purchase, but only
bound 10 furnish such as lac hal IN his possession, ana
left 1t TO the jury to say whether ne had gwen he M
all the Information lac bad, and the Jury were tod
hat II he had done Le had complied Wth the cOId.
t0n and entitled TO recover 50 lar as tht oojeO'i'h
was concerned a.. Iition
is reasonable Unreasonable; 1T IS lawful. III III
assured has assented TO IL, and we cannot Gis-
tnr parties. Had the injured been unable rom any
cause fully comply with the condition. ana the ma
his fault, probably failure literally 10 com
ply VIA il might not have Deen fatal 70
Kcr 81 The difficulty is at the condition was ignored
and aside by The Judge Ia his instructions 70 te Jury
clause AMI condition ct tho CONTRACT lhe lhteit an
meaning Of the clause IS neither ainD Nous nor obscure,
..nd upon the most favorable Interpretation Tor the
insured eXacts from INN, upon CNo reiut'l.ion
Of the insurers. duplicates OF MS invoices OIL poI-
chase, certified by the merchants IRON whOn
the purchases were made. lac condition Is
reasonable aud not difficult Of performance and the de
PENDANT has "a light to Insist upon "a compliance Tue
coHrt below to nave regarded the ccftlhtd COPIES
called for by the condition as copies OF originals I'D INC
had been IN his possession na, M pfeh ueS,,Us co. t'
the condition had become impossible or periOiHaIce
Oi tie originals that certified copies could Do required
nee, ssary imposing tle duty upon te ms reI 10 SUI
pleent lis proofs by copies 10 DO obtained from oIher
SoaGces-thc sellers OF the goods. ,,,,
For the error suggested and without considering the
other questions made, the Judgment 1uoS 20 IS'efsou
and new trial granted
All concur. Rapal.o j. absent