The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-11-26
rns,lnrnrlcc Lar.-

ttA NfkG IANO LSsayN Ng3v v 4Ass
il Insurance Lnw.
/ 4 CASE DECIDED IN THE UNITED STATES CIR
CUT COURT YESTERDAY, WHICH IS 0F N
TEREsT TO BUSINESSMEN 4HD INSURANCE
COMPANIES.
| . In the case OF the American Basket Com
Ipany against the Farmville Insurance Tom
pany, Judge Hughes. sitting in the United
States Circuit Court. yesterday delivered
the following opinion:
|, Policies OF insurance, like all other writ
ten contracts, must be construed and en-
forced according to their terms. III they
convey plain, practical meaning, that
meaning must be carried into effect. ).
Policies Of insurance differ. somewhat
from other contracts, however, in respect ia
the rules Of construction to be applied to
them. They are unipartite. They are IN
the form OF receipts from insurers TO the
insured, embodying covenants to compen.
safe for losses described. They are signed
by thaansurer only. In general the insured
never sees the policy until after he contracts
and pays his premium, and he then most fre-
auentlv receives it from distance when ii
is too late for him to obtain explanations or
notifications OF the policy sent him. The
policy, too. is generally filled with condi-
| tions inserted by persons skilled in the
learning OF the insurance law and acting in
the exclusive interest OK the insurance COM
pany. y; a.t
Out Of these circumstances the principle
has grown up in the courts that these poll
cies must be construed literally in respect
to the persons insured, and strictly with
respect to the insurance company. fSee In
surance Company Us. Wilkinson; t3 Wal
lace, 1921 .i." ns s,.-.f.
! ANOTHER RULE OF THE LAW -, ~
in regard to fre-insuranccs is to discourage
acuqer policies; that is to say, policies
taken by persons who have no interest in
the property insured, and in which such
persons merely bet that the property will
not be burned. Such insurancies are con-
trary to public policy and promote fires.
The law will, therefore, give force TO all
provisions in policies OF fre-insurance
which require that the person who takes
out the policy shall have an interest IN
the property, and shall disclose that interest
with precision in his "application ~ Tor
insurance. That is the purpose OF the law,
and is the object sought to be srbserVed by
the insertion of clauses Yoidlng them IN
| cases where deception is practlced IN regard
to the real ownership Of the property ln-
sured; and terminating them whenever,
during the period OF insurance, the person
hoIdinga policy ceases to own the property,
and it becomes thereby lodger policy. There.
fore. clauses in policies requiring a truth
full statement OF che interest OF the applir
cant for insurance, and forbidding changes
of ownership during the period OF lnsur-
ance, are to be construed not technically to
the prejudice OF the policy-holder. but ra-
tionully and fairly to protect the insurance
company from the ext. .aordinary risks, and
from the certain and numerous losses which
would fall upon them from insurances OF
property not actually owned by the persons
insured.
| IN THE CASE UNDER TRIAL
there are two questions which have formed
the subject of contention between counsel,
and upon which instructions are asked OF
! the Court. /
T. The first is, whether plaintiffs right
to recover is defeated by the fact that the
record-title could not be held by the plain
| titfs under the laws OF Delaware, and was
therefore vested in Mr.; Orris E., North, il
not made known to- the defendant or Its
agent at the time Of the issuance OF the pol
icy, considered in connection with the
statement in the application for Insurance
that the title was "in the name Of" the
plaintiffs. am of opinion that 1t is not de-
feated BY that fact if the plaintiffs were the
s'entire, unqualified, and sole owners" o.
! the. property insured "for their own
use and benefit. - 7 do not think that the
fact of the record-title being in Mr.. NORTH
OF itself defeats their right to recover
unless their statement Ia the application
was made TO deceive and miSlead the inSu
rance company: The evil sought to bt
avoided by those provisions OF the policy
recurring a correct statement Of the plain
tifts' interest in the property was the lnsu
rance of property not O,rned by the holder
OF the policy, the destruction OF which
i would not cause loss to that holder equa
to the value Of the property destroyed. l
the plaintiffs in the case at bar were TIT
owners OF the entire beneficial interest II
the property at the taking out OF the pol
icy, and would have been losers to the fll
extent of its value if it had been destroyed
then this ownership fulfilled every purpos'
which the provisions Of the policy in re
u gard to a disclosure of interest were de
\ signed to secure, and, in the absence o
fraud or fraudulent Misrepresentation, {
merely technical difference in the title, sc
out in the application, ought not in equity
and GOOD conscience to defeat the plain
tifts, Il they are otherwise entitled 10 re
/ cover. " -.-- ....,.
I THE QUESTION FOR THE JURY
in this point is, therefore, whether th'
statement in the application" for insu
rance that the title was in the s'namc o
the American Basket Company" misled th'
defendant or its agent, and was intended II
do so. II they think not, it is my opinion
that the fact Of the recoFd-title being ir
Mr.. North does not Of itself defeat the ac
tior, il the plaintiffs are otherwise entitled
to recover. '@f-s '-.,...--
In this same connection I will consider
the statement on oath in regard to the title
:. made in the proof OF .loss.'' The same rule
of law as to the real ownership Of insured
property, which has been explained, zap
plies here. II the person holding the policy
swears that he was owner Of property de
stroyed by fire of which he was not in fac
the full and sole beneficial owner the fac
:. that he was not owner proves that his policy
, contrary TO its carefully.eXpressed proVi
sions, bad been ,cager policy, and defeat
his right to recover; and this the mor
Justly because he has practiced fraud, aDt
has added perjury to his fraud. 90
1t is for the jury to say from their view o
~ THE EVIDENCE
whether the full beneficial ownershipef th
property destroyed in the case on trial wa
: or was not in the plaintiffs; whether or no
this ownership had been diverted Mt th
time OF the fire by the mortgage deed O
18th September, 1916. or by any othe
4 transfer, SO rs to render the statement ol
oath made by the PLAINTIFF agent in th
"proof OF loss !" that they were, such fraut
or false swearing rs is contemplated by tn