The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1885-09-05
NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE
LAW

The section of the New Hampshire insur-
ance law which has caused the commotion
among the insurance companies reads as fol-
lows:
sec. 2. In any suit that may be brought in this
state against an insurance company to recover for
total loss sustained by fire or other casualty 10
real estate or to buildings on the land of another
tne amount OF damage shall be the amount ex-
pressed IN the contract as the sum Insured and
other evidence shall be admitted on trial as IN
the value of the property insured; provided
whenever there is partial destruction or damage
10 the property insured it shall be the duty of the
company to pay the assured a sum Of money equal
to the damage done to the properly; and provided
further, that nothing in this section shah be con-
strued to prevent the admission of testimony to
prove oYer.insurance fraudulently obtained.
We must confess that after reading the
full text of the law it looks much less iniqui-
touS than it appeared from the general de-
scription of it given in the newspapers. We
had supposed the law applied to personal prop.
erty as well as real estate. 1t is easy to see
that if such were the case the opportunities for
fraud upon the insurance companies would
be innumerable, and the insurers would be
entirely at the mercy of the insured. A man
could insure his stock of goods or furniture
for its full value, then sell half of it and
burn up the rest, and the insurance compa-
MES would be compelled to pay the full in
surance, unless they could prove fraud, a
thing difficult to do. Such a law as that
would certainly be Ubiquitous. 1t would put
a premium on incendiarism.
But this section as it stands, though it NAV
not be polite one, can hardly be called in
iquitous. In case Of the total destruction of
the building it compels the insurance com
pany to pay the full amount of the risk TAX
in of III
the company to pay in money the amount Of
loss. 1t would seem as if the companies
might protect themselves under this section,
by the exercise of prudence in insuring the
property in the first place. If A applies to
an insurance agent under the law for insur
ance on his house, it would seem that the
agent if he is person of fairly good judg-
ment, could readily discover from an inspec-
ton of the property whether the amount of
insurance he was asked to place upon it was
excessive or not If the building is in
locality where the value of real estate is de-
teriorating, he can protect his company from
the risk involved in this fact by refusing to
issue long policy and compelling the in
surer to reinsure at short intervals, diminish
ing the amount as the value of the property
diminishes. We confess we cannot quite see
what there is in this section to create
alarm among the companies, unless it is
impractcable for them to examine the prop
erty before insuring it. In case of over
insurance obtained by fraud it will be OBJ
served that this section expressly authorizes
the admission of testimony to prove it.
1t appears to us that there is much better
reason for complaint against the first section
of the law, which reads as follows:
Section l. Should any insurance company not
organized under the laws but doing an insurance
business within this State, make an application to
remove any suit or action, to which it is party,
heretofore or hereafter commenced in any court OF
inns state, TO the United States District or Circuit
SourI, OF snall enter into any compact combnar
tlen WIN other insurance companies for the pun
pose OF governing or controlling the rates charged
for IRE insurance on any property within this