The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-12-23
INSURANCE CONTRACTS.
Their Character and Effect ~ ~
tcrprcted by the United
States Circuit Court.
Am Opinion Of Interest and Importance
To Insurers and tho Insured.

The following opinion. deyor" Yesterday
hy Judge II. u lsllinga eittlng ~ luige ~
chic United States Circuit Court Ter th'a ala-
ttiet. Wtll he found To ~ ct intafhAt am ~
portancc 10 insurance companies anu P''-
aons having potuiaa with thnm:
II Levy "a. thu Virginia Fro and Marine In ,
aurnnna COMPANY, amn ln,rlnalnnta Thnrn wna
Iira and nhs To u suit hfnuHht Nv p'ht'ui"
upon nm pnl'ryo inanlaan' w a n.,, II nS"np
hon hat according 10 tho rravaiona Of IA" pol
Iay tho action II barred ny t. lanan y fimn
Thn submission w tho eantt ~ 'hN oRnan ~
tba nr,sanf tima IL almpy IA 70 fiji" unca Ion
HWaa thia AMT inatituad Within tho timN tlsni
hy thn tnrmE " thn r,ep y" nv wv ~
ahnw any wniynr by Tho lnfnniania nf tho I'm
itaion. ma combining tn" inquiry ~ hn inter
nrnntiau Of the pulioy itaot2
lrhn pnliry ipulata4 that Tho loss or dhm Al
ago ehal w paid aiXiy aaya atnr no rro"lA ~
IntEed ny me n9ninahhn n"nd anl In" toaa ami
hnyn haan satisfactorily paenrtninea and proved
~ required by the provisions OF thin n2l''I,
Tint tho dam AHn To property not tofally H.
atrnyni ahall unlnaa tho amount u nErn"i
upon, b. Appraised by itatn'ere9c1 pn,aena
mutually agrnea upnn hy the parties ihat 4
ahali III OPTIONAL With tho company g. rnrlnn"
tho articles lpat N destroyed with nthnt' ~ tho
same eina and quality, q lake thh good, 81
am mart thnrraf 1T ,hrr value nppraIanl ~
aforeanil and 10 rohu'la aud repair tho huiid
tnga withna reafnnahl" LINZ. giS,nG III, j." y
having received tho nroofs hernin rau,trnd
that until sixty darA after an'h pfnnta and
certificates nrn pfnAusnA. nnd naNh nNnninh
lion and Appraised permitted au,t Altell ""
instituted nor the loea - uo"meh proven n
Ii il further provided that in raao
difference ahal Rrtan conentninG ~"
amount w any lesa or damage w VIII hfnt
arnt thereof ms boon rarfired ia 1tte form Nv
The company the matter Ahnli. ~ TIL inalanN :
III thn a9mpanv. ~ pnhmtttni ~ tho Judgment
az athitratara mutually aRra,d upon wtln'n
sr3 In ing ma la ia
or damage, ahall ~ binding uran the raittna !.
but such award or arpraianl OF dam
ago ahRll only 1nfprminn tho amount 81 ltaA
auatainod hut ia 10 waa tho LIABILITY NJ ihn
company
NH ii furtl,rrtnarn expressly aGrend. iif' rir
sat D. action of any Kind ~ 'iust the eonpanr
fer tha recovery 4 My m o.. ne"n unir' pr
any court IL law Or oAhnrnry tnitt amer an
atna'd stntl .nrG terH atihnea hxtns thr
amount ut such rlaim ~ tho manner ahavn
provided nor una4s such autt Or aHtNn shall
he commenced Within thnterm IF : = m"nthh
npSt nftar titr lnas ~ damage shall occur. ana
III rnan any surh auti or action ehlH ~ com
mencah against this company after The nNnlrh.
tinn of aN mnnthA next attnt au'h 'msa I'M dam
ago ahntl have artnrraa. tho lapaa ot tinn nlAli
be taken aud doomed conclusive ertinnnn
against the validity IN ha claim thnrnnhy "
tempted tn IL enforced any statute u limita
ton to the enntr ~ notwithstanding.
Tine petition alleges that the Ives n'enrrnd ny
Are on Ausns = A. D. 1ss w, annt" wa ~ ~
lsTp Thia suit was instituted February ". All
ID. 1870.
All 1ueetioua Of waiver hoing excluded. thr
question which Tue court y NV 'A t,
from Tho time II tha nrn .na 'oaa, 81 from
the Hmo ~ thn AWARD II the former.
thcn the eSeeptiea \ good t. NY hnd ihn nans-
tad to II Jury NJ datrrmtnci Nv thp CONT. If tho
latter, then thu execution muat o. ny'rtat'a
and Judgment rendered fnr TIM nihtntH.
Ii Ii IL he seen from the provisions " tho
policy above anerd that the loss "a. 90 tnr rs re-
SUBSTITUTE NV f6r oli. aud ~ repair AMI q ~
build. to he dncited within sixty days after tho
propar grelimnry pn"a hrn tntnt1,,Tn ,1 ann
ton to replace aud rnhutld. the loss hen b.
comes payable: tha ~ far ~ r"lai"s - hn
amount III oss an award Y Indispensable: no
suit can be Sustained unless there shall hHve
boon an award. aud that thn ant must M
after the loas or damage ahAll occur. that un
iaas sp brought ''ihe lapse of time ahRil hn
deemed conclusive evidence against tho valid
That thi+ limitation il valid and binding upou
the parties ~ hnld IN Fuliam w Now YORK ~
ss asan tsin np IL e IS WITH ro"renro to stint
lar limitation III ono year til Carrunny w. Tho
Merchants Insurance Company. 20 Louisiana
An. apS. But In neither NJ these cases WIS tlin
point decided which II here submitted. Tho
question has been directly passed upenr ny IT."
court Of appeals IN The State Of Now York \
seems Ia he tha titled luetrinR NJ that rAurt
that THE limitation should hr construed 10 con. .
nenen nj the time when the loss ~ the terms of
tho policy became due aua payable and not vi
the time Of tho physical burning Of tho prop
erty.. See the opinion 81 the court. r. Gtv9n NJ
Chief Justice Church. \ Insurance Inv jour
nal, No. s, page 6sa and tho New York ensns
there cited Tue doctrine has been reached ~
that court In gasNa involving tho mattaT of
waiver OF the limitation. But Il secms now to
be- settled H. 4 proposition with retnronen "a
the constitution " th,s 'nu, w fnn n Zane Fam"
rance as rule Of construction. page 49, se'-
ton 44S.
fhA argument anon which tho cases Ill tnh
books ara placed. In those cases the control
ling provision wns held "a ba that ihe loss should
become pa, able up II tho lapse OF siNty or nino-
ty days after the satA factory campletipn aud
filing of the proofs. and It was there hold 70 he
limitation was from thu time the right w action
existed because. according 10 any oh'r con-
rninn 1nn pnry w@mia Ally n y til
glecting to file them. to POSTPONE the ttno when
tho action might he brought ~ = time when. by
the six months limttfiNn. me right 10 sue at nil
would be eXtiuguished. But in this case we
have to deal nor My with the claim postponing
the right IT action till sixty days after romprte
proofs have heen furnished. but with IN
additional claim which tnterpnses y new
ground of delaying the plaintiffs right ~
sue. viz: till arhitrators mutually chosen
have made mn inward. Now the control ON the
part VI the insured over tFn matter " salts
factory proofs Mas but partial and imperfect:
/ but. In the nature n things control ~ M
part over the tima when arhttratNrs shall make
an award l. clearly impossible. 50 that. II the
defendants construction OF this clause In the
policy were touh ainan insured party. Who had
been doing his utmost q secure q seasunade
award. might fail in Obtaining Il until after the
lapse ~ siN months from the iate NJ the fire VI
loss. To maiuta,u this construction would ha
10 maintain that the contract Ot Insurance. pro
vidad thai any suit IL enforce II might he
premature until Il ,heeame prescribed. snd that
the insured without fauu OF omission could be
toiN by the insurer that tha fact thnt he had NOT
brought M action upon an Instrument hefore
his right of action by III very provisions could
w brought was. W the Very terms " tnat in-
strument conclusive evidence that his claim
under 1t was Invalid.
Such construction cannot ha maintained II
any other can reasonably va adopted. A con
strueion should ha sought which will har-
monize NJ the provisions Of the poticy and ~
fectuate the intent Of the parties - contract
Of indemnity The weight Of authority and
reason Is III favor of making this limitation
commence. Ms 10 all limitations upon the time
of actions under statutes. at the time when the
party whose right to sue Is 70 be eNttnguishad
.eoua have instituted an action. and not n the