The Daily clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1888, 1886-02-26


CommlssIoner Tafbsx ID Vs. recapl f
port q ~ etusAsss Legisiauu
mall she lollaHlrg comment - she New
Iiampshlfe vAiaea toIisy iAw. Ar. 4@f.
box viii y senepbsred - ona 81 tb.
Democratic eongre-sinen tisat vent IN On
The tidal wave Of 1874:
The valued policy feature OF the Law il
alleged by the companies az their princi-
pal grievance under which they declare they
cannot safely and pr0htably DO business.
Oi their inability TO do business success
fully Tor themselves on that basis am not
persuaded. 70 adapt their business to the
new situation created by the law might,
and probably would occasion iucon.
venience, expense and change OF habit,
but it could be done | am, however, we'll
convinced they ought not be compelled TO,
and for solid reasons, apart from their in
terest or inclination, they should not he
permitted to. Nor would the public be con
tent with IL. Under the open policy the
property owner may obtain full protection
against loss. Under the valued policy no
company could prudently write insurance to
the iull value OF the insured property. A
margin would need be left liberal enough
to surely cover any excess in original valu-
alton, and also the possible deterioration
ia value within the insurance term. While,
in administration, the valued plan might
tend in some degree to abate the conceded
mischief OF oyerinsurance (for which an
other and better remedy should be found
il would as surely create a popular COM
plant OF under-insurance. A judgment
entitled TO respect, ii not conclusive, has
already been pronounced upon the relative
merits Of the two plans. With free and
equal chance Of competition for public
favor and business approval, the valued
fire policy has yielded place to the open
inndemily form everywhere.
The question is u be considered in its
relation 70 sound public policy, and a
recurrence IL tie essential nature a che
ins,lrance contract sheuld lie helpful ID 4
Iiua opinion.
Az eminent unthorily correctly defines
insurance a. A contrett whereby ona. iof
a confederation, undertakes 10 comp nhale
ane,l,er A NJ han suffer- oss, u y appilS
caSlb lD every i0fps II lns6 Mnefnrek
dangere unprecedented, 81 pfohciLo n
required, it holds out It's fostering baud ant
promises Indemnity. This principle Tim
demuity) underies the contract, and II can
never, without violence to its essence and
spirit, be made by the assured source OF
profit, its sole purpose being to guarantee
against loss or damage"
The valued clause is defended on the
ground that as matter OF equity the COM
pany should be liable for the sum Of insure
ance ii is paid premium upon. There
can be, however. no Lawful. equity between
gamtsters. Companies may be willing to
gam Ole with the owner or other person upon
the chances that piece OF property will or
will not burn-and that is essentially what
a policy OF insurance becomes wien ii
ceases TO become a contract OF indemnity.
Bat the State should not lend its authors
ty TO enforce contract repugnant to pub
lin morals, however willingly entered
Into by the equally culpable parties TO it.
Oar courts hold that contract of lnsur-
ance made with person who has no
interest in the property is wager and
void in law. Why, Tor like leason, should
not contract which insures Tor an
amount more than the insurable interest
be equally condemned as wager and
/ illegal2 Ii Il man usures his property for
more than it is worth he does 50, not to
protect himself from a possible injury, but
ior the gambling chance OF possible
profit. Ii, under those circumstances, the
law assures that he shall realize the profit
ii the property burns does not the law
tempt him TO destroy il? A contract for
Il consideration to pay the assured the
\ amount OF damage lac may suffer Is legiti-
mate insurance, whence arises rights the
law will protect. But a contract 10 pay
more than the damage, violates the whole
some law OF both private and social
. morality, aud the parties who make il
acquire no rights which the civil law
, should respect or honest men sympathize
, with. There are insurance companies
willing 10 gamble in this sort; and with
the valued policy protecting such transac-
tions with its legal shield, legitimate hi.
suranee would suffer from the unworthy
competition.
The other reason urged ip support OF the
justice aud expectancy oil the law, is that
the companies unfairly and vexatiously
dispute the settlement OF losses when the
amount payable is subject to adjustments.
This assumption oil Tact IS not verified.
and Tie argument sought 10 &c built upon
il must iall for want OF foundation. Ny
observation Is that the companies, con
seiOus Of their disadvantage in litigation
and sensitive 10 the popular prejudice, in
Y furious 10 their patronage, which aach
controversies are ulaly 10 excite, submit
10 claims they might in good faith and
oaght IN justice 90 themselves and the pub
lie, to resist From olltnterest, ii 30
wor,hier Impulse, as a rule with extremely
rare exceptions, they literally perIorm
theif obligations No reason Is given;
or suggests Itself, why party dissatisfied
with TIE proposed adjustment OF his loss
under an insurance contract, should not b
reaittsd for a redress OF his grievance, Il
he has a real one, to The established lfibu-
nals cl psti1e. What is there singular n
tue nature OF the contract, or the rights
ana obligations incident to i, tAas should
! Distinguish il, IS respects tie legal rights
and remed Is Of partiss % it, from other
contracts which men make 10 oss,in aFy biisi-
n,ss ints rcourseY This law applies soislY