The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1891-12-16
,>poRTANTDECISION
,.n Fire Insurance Matters
in This City.

p 'DI Instice Judd overruled the
553l ..sr Of the defendants in the
a1o. II kimo Pake vs.. the North
u ~, " Fire Insurance Go, OF Ham
D'r Tbe following is the opinion
81 CHEF Justice Judd i'd;
~ 81 June, 1891, the defend
o. 'no od policy of fire insurance
d s:3iS6 to the =, plaintiff, running
> wv year. The property was
Ole ead by fire on the 9Th June.
.t-'?{ G;%nt;f' had previously taken
De P2F ia, in the Royal Insurance
,Pnr and the Union Insurance
1Ps ny Of New Zealand for $4,000
9Pa9q;5b The policy issued by defend
%. otaioed the usual clause that
b c. ,iJ he void "if the assured
;3o have or shall hereafter make
t I~ insurance on the property
q S S,1 insured or any part thereof,
.sy@ the consent of the company
o ..on hpreon." The consent of the
.Sr to the prior insurance is
prriften on the policy.
r5o bill AYERS that this was not
D although the company, the
,3 s, herein, we'll knew that
y assurance existed or could have
~ inI9o;npd that such insurance ex-
"a and if it did not ascertain
,s XII net to be admitted to plead
snch consent was not written
- ,o 1 rs a defense to this bill, be-
geo Of its neglect to SO ascertain
'I oristence Of such insurance, for
the plaintiff in his verbal appli-
.;,n for such insurance, being I'M
MI, m;iiar with the English language
=, I'm not aware Of what insurance
accent in Honolulu might have
Ion 70 Ont on his behalf, when asked
.tba defendant whether any insur-
30 existed, referred defendant to
" agent in Honolulu, by name
4 ARIo. and the plaintiff does
:. know whether the defend
NJ asked the said Ahlo or
.-~gbf aDv information from him on
l. Subject, but the defendant issued
h policy as aforesaid"
The defendant demurred to the
. HI on the ground that it does not
# Nd any adequate reason for non
.-ifIjment of the condition in the
~Iicy that other insurance, prior or
E15seouent, must have the defen-
,nt's consent thereto written on
be policy.
The question Of the right of plain
Afto recover is delicate and inter
Zinc. On this demurrer the facts
p not all before me. If the prior
SlIicies contained the above quoted
ssase in regard to other insurance
4 tbe consent Of the other com
l~ies was not written on their poll
the question would arise whe-
,g these policies were not rend-
nd void By the subsequent lnsur-
Isl read the law as laid down by
Courts, in these stipulations
idiDg the policies, inserted for
sole benefit of one party to the
Dtract, the word void" is to be
1strued as if it read g voidable !"
The election of the underwriters.
snders VS.. Watertown Fire !ns: 90.
s5N. Y. All; Turner vs.. Meridian
s,re ms. Co. Is Fed. Rep. 454. And
r this reason the doctrine OF
,aiyer is often applied to such con-
sHions. upon the theory that a
reach Of the condition only renders
he policy voidable. Id. 456.
4 The decisions are contradictory.
Some Courts hold that the latter pc.
#iT. being invalid by reason OF
reach of condition the prior insur-
lance is good. Stevens vs.. Citizens
lbs. Co. 60 Iowa $50; 16 Fed. Rep.
j5 and cases cited therein. Other
Courts hold that the subsequent po-
Icy, whether legally enforceable or
hot Or whether voidable on its face
IN voidable for extrinsic matter.
nyks a forfeiture of the prior
Policy. Id. 1856. It is clear by
be weight of authority that II the
lHor Insurance is known to the
ampany, it is to be considered as
.s7ino waived the condition or more
ropeTIy, the company would be es
sgped thereby. Lockwood VS.. Mid,
le3ex Nut. Assurance Go. AZ Conn
80; Redstrake VS.. Cumberland ms
b 4N.J. Iaw) 294. So also II
be prior insurance is III the ae
adant's company. Bridgewateel
19n Co. VS.. Enterprise ms. 20. 159
lass. 1873.
The question raised By the de
,lryer is a narrower one, whether
,e statement made by plaintlf llr
Spouse to the question whether he
I'd any prior insurance on the pro
aty) that he referred the company
ahi8 agent Ahlo for further lnfor
adOn, he himself not knowing wha
s1rance might have been taken GU
his agent, was notice to the com
any that there might be prior IN
france, and which inquiry 1t was
oand to pursue and if it did no
arsue the inquiry, but issued tn
ssllcy, it is now estopped to SET ul
defense the stipulation as Z (
'4er insurance. The case Wh!ci
$ars more exactly on this question
oan any other [ have been able u
;ad Is, Reyolds VS.. Commercial Ere
pS0rance Go. AZ n. Y, 6O4. Her
10 PLAINTIFFS agent informed tn
20 NsQrHnrn nOrnnnnu that he though