Morris tribune. [volume] (Morris, Minn.) 1880-2000, 1886-10-13
WHAT MUTUAL FIRE | INSURANCE MAY
COST N0U.
NO LIMIT TO YOUR LIABILITY.
Decision Of the Supreme Court of Michigan
In the Case Of Mr.. Thomas Berry!
An Exp ensive Experience.

(trcm the BurIl ngtOn HaWAeye,
Sept. g., 1885, Ins,ururance COM
PAM es orgaDized on the stock plan.
charge a stated amount of premium
for stated amount of insurance, and
| the policy holder. whether he pays
cash or gives a note, can never be held
liable for more than the amount of his
prem ium or premium note. To any
| one who does not fully understand
the law, IT would seem that the
amount OF liability to mutual in
surance company would also be liml-
ted by the amount of the note given
| and that in no case could more than
the amount of the note be collected.
The expensive experience Of Mr..
Thomas Berry, of Wayne county,
J Michiga an, will, if needed, prove a
cheap Lesson to farmers who think
they are obtaining cheap Insurance
by giving notes to mutual insurance
compa mics. Mr.. Berry gave the
mutual company three promissory
notes which were called "undertak-
ings." These undertakings were as
follows:
One was for $4,000 and was credited
with $22.5O. The second was for $500
and was credited with $3.50. The third
was for $500 and was credited with
1925. The balance of the undertak-
ings which Mr.. Berry owned the COM
pany amounted to 1915, and he sup
posed that more than that amount
could not be collected from him, for
his policy contained a clause which
provided that: "The extent of the
liability of the members of the Com
pany shall not exceed the amount OF
: undertaking given for premium on
their risk"
In September, 1881. Messrs. I. Biltz
& Sons, who were members of the
, company, met with loss by fire, in
the sum of $4,586.5O. This loss caused
the company to be placed In the
hands of receiver. For the purpose
of paying I. Blitz & Son, and all other
) Indebtedness of the company includ'
ing the receivers salary and expenses
Mr.. Russell the receiver, proceeded to
2 levy an assessment on the members
8 according to the amount of insurance
held by each Of them, although Mr.
: Berry's undertakings amounted in all
! to only 5000. of which he had paid
i 1926, he was assessed for $91.00. This
/ | amount he refused to pay, and Mr..
Russell, the receiver, sued him in the
| | circuit court of Wayne county and a
; Judgment for $91.O0 and costs was
, rendered against Mr.. Berry, who ap.
| pealed the case to the supreme court
t | and endeavored to sustain his case by
, showing that in his application and
| undertakings he promised to pay
/ | whatever assessment the directors
Z should from time to time, declare to
| be required, but never in excess of the
: amoont of the undertakings; he re.
t ferred also to the agreement in the
= policy that he should not be held
/ liable for sum in excess of the I'M
> fdertaking given for the premium.
. But these seemingly well taken points
/ did not avail him, and the Judgment
, of the Wayne county circuit court
was affirmed with costs, all the
: Justices of the supreme court agreeing
to the decision, which may be found
. in full In the January, 1884, iumber,
| of the Law Journal.
Il The Argus, in its December, 1888,
number, commenting on this decision
/, ] of the supreme court, says: