The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1883-07-18
MONTPELIER, VT, WEDNESDAY,, JULY IS, 1888

ants, from the Addison county court. The
principal points of general interest in the opin-
ion are with reference to the keeping Of gun
powder and infammable liquids by the in
sured. One clause in defendant company's
policy reads: "the keering of gunpowder for
sale or In storage, upon or in the premises
insured, without request in the application
and express permission in the policy, shall
render 1t void;" and another says; "no cam
phene, ETC., or any other infammable liquid
Except kerosene) shall be kept for sale in any
building hereafter insured in the company,
without written permission" The policy Of
insurance was taken out on general stock Of
merchandise kept by the plaintiff in Bridport
in store which was owned by another party
and not insured by defendants company.
Among other things he kept gunpowder for
sale, and the company introduced evidence to
show that he also sold turpentine and gin.
The court held to the general principle that
the conditions Of the policy should be inter-
preted strictly in favor of the company, but
literally in favor of the insured, and so de-
cided that the phrase upon or in the premises
insured " could not be applied in this case, as
there were no premises insured, but stock Of
dry goods, and therefore that the keeping OF
gunpowder, etc, would not render plaintiff s
policy void. 1t will be noticed that this opin-
ion does not decide the question as to whether
this prohibitory clause, if disobeyed, would or
would not render void policy in which a
building was insured, but leaves that as before.
The court very neatly avoided deciding whether
the keeping of infammable liquids would rem.
der policy void by saying that no testimony
was introduced by defendant company tc
prove that gin and turpentine belonged to thi:
class, and in the absence of such testimony
the court would not take it for granted that
they did. Furthermore it is stated that the
prohibition applies to keeping these liquids
"in any building insured" whereas in thi,
case the building was not insured. The othe
points raised by the company were mostly
technical, but the decisions show that tn,
whole tendency of the courts is to interpre
policies as far as possible in the interest o
the insured. The following extract from tn
opinion which is taken from decision b,
another court will be OF interest: "The,
Lpolicies] are unipartite. They are in the form
embodying covenants to compensate for losse
described. They are signed by the insurer
only. In general the insured never sees tn
policy until after he contracts and pays hi
premium, and he then most frequently receive
it from distance, when it is too late for hr
to obtain explanations or notifications of tn
policy sent him. The policy, too, is general
filled with conditions inserted by person
skilled in the learning of the insurance Law
and acting in the exclusive interests of th
insurance company. Out of these circun
stances the principle has grown up in tn
courts that these policies must be construe
: literally in respect to the persons insured, an
strictly with reference to the insurance con
pany." The judgment Of the lower cou
) was affirmed. The amount ordered to be pal,
with the interest thereon, was nearly $4,000.