The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-01-30
INSURANCE PEOPLE LOSE
Four Companies Have Cases Decided
Against Them In ths SUI
preme Court.
They Gave Policies on q Frame
Hotel at Morsland Which
Was Burned.
The Owncrs Selected Arbitrators and thu
Companies y They Had Not
been Agreed Upon.

-Four fire insurance companies had casei
decided against them yesterday by the su,
prone court. The mount was 36. 461, on d
two story frame hotel destroyed by lire II,
Moreland, on the line OF the Northern Pa
cific railroad, In Gallatin county. The fx,
lures were insured for 3d. Sci. IA. J. i. Ran
dali, II. i. Lowndes, W.. u. Flowers and 4,
n. SAWYER insured the building and AZ
lures 10 September, 1886, in the American
Fire Insurance. company, Of Philadelphia
the Phoenix. Of brooklyn; the Lancashire
and the Liverpool, London and, Globe botL
Of England. In Angus. Of the same veal
tho hotel and fixtures burned. The day af-
ter the fire the owners alleged they notified
the agent Of the companies at Helena, ant
that the adjusting agent made a persona
examination into the circumstances Of Thu
hre, and made a request that the value be
liked by arbitrators mutually chosen
The II also clsimed that
hetchum d Denoille, of Helena
were the arbitrators and that
they fixed the value of the building al
$7,l79. Sept. "A the owners fu nished proof
Of loss. These we're returned by the agent
as not satisfactory. The companies 10 a
defense denied that the title TO the hotel
was in Randall and the others. They
denied that the loss on the hotel
amounted to more than So, ESQ,
and the loss on the fixtures more than $500.
The request for arbitration and that katch.
nm d Denollle had been agreed upon rs RI.
District court III this county rendered
verdict against the companies.
lhe supreme court opinion by Justice
HARDWOOD, In which the other justices con-
cur, says in part:
Tins action was brought to recover
Sl,ooo insurance upon of the policies
mentioned in the case of Randall ct al Va.
the American Fire Insurance company, Of
Philadelphia. That case il referred to for
q statement OF the pleadings and evidence
and points relied III by the appellant in this
case. Ihls cause was tried before the court
without a jury, and by stipulation the same
evidence introduced on the trial of the cause
reiefred to BY the respective parties was
submitted and considered in this case. ex-
cept that the policy of insurance issued by
Inc fnoen11 Insurance company was intro
duced herein. There are no material differ
ences in the policies as to the provision q re-
curing proofs of loss. The clause Of the
fhoenix policy providing for arbitration
70 determl p the amount of loss reads az
follows: 'Ihe amount Of sound value and
damage to the property. whether real OF
personal, covered by this policy, or any
part thereof, may be determined by mutual
agreement between the company and the
assured, or failing to agree the same shall
then be submitted to competent and impair
tlal arbitrators one TO be selected
Chosen e. s''h in p oass Of the dis, two syss,n. &c
to select an umpire to whom they shall re.
fer each subject Of difference, and the
award OF any two of them, in writing. I'M
der oath. shall be binding and conclusive ms
TO the amount of such loss or damage. but
shall not determine the validity Of the CON
tract, moi the liability of this company, nor
any other question. except only the amount
Of such loss or damage
'Ihls policy also conta: ms a clause to the
effect that no action against the company
for the recovery of any claim by virtue 81
this policy. shall be sustainable until after
an award shall have BEEN obtained fixing
the amount of such claim in the manner
above provided, which is agreed to be a con-
dltion precedent
IF this latter clause should be given lit
erat effect, 1T amounts to al agreement that
the assured who suffers a loss covered bv
this policy will not resort to court to COM
pei payment unless defendant consents; for
It the assured cannot maintain an action
until an award shall have been obtained.
liking the amount OF such claim in the
manner provided and the company
~SSS AtOs ISAA AL VAOO0luX Ill hCD1LEAGOI.
etc., then the assured could not obtain
award, hence, according to the
literal terms OF the policy he could not in
that case maintain his action in court Al
all. The contract cannot be construed
thus, Tor such a construction makes the
clause void. We must if possible give this
provision such an Interpretation az 10 make
it reasonable, and not void in law. We
must therefore construe the provision as to
to mean that the provision shall
be brought into action when the insurer as
serts a difference as to the amount of value
Of the property destroyed or damaged from
that stated in the verified proofs of loss.
And the clause %forbidding the mainte-
nance of an action for recovery of the loss
until after an award shall have been OBJ
tanned must be read and applied in connec-
tion with the arbitration CLAUSE, and ii will
into notion to bar plaintiffs recovery
where he has refused to arbitrate after the
for arbitration arose, and the same
was reasonably sought in conformity with
the terms of the policy. The contention
was that the statement, Loss on building
as estimated by ketchum and De Noille i
Co., builders selected by agreement between