The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1893-02-22
measure of their liability for losses, Mr.
Mcfarland says:

In the first place the applicant for lnsur-
ance may buy such insurance rs he likes.
He may buy that which insures most and
in any contingency, and pay for 1t, or he
may buy that which is sold for less price
and carries with 1t correspondingly less de-
gree of protection. II Is a two-fold question
of prudence and cost which the applicant
must settle for himself. But having settled
1t, having gone into the insurance mart with
eyes wide open and bought that insurance
which requires him to contribute In the
event of partial loss, simply because he
could buy It cheaper, he should not be
heard to say that he has not his own, should
the contingency Of his contribution become
a fact. This would De childish. He has his
own. He bought that insurance which
made him in certain contingencies CO.
insurer and took his chance with the COM
panies. II he has a total loss, he gains; II
loss which is less than so per cont Of the
value OF the property, he loses. To illus
trate: Suppose ga" has property worth
$1,000, ON which the rate is one per cent.
He desires TO insure for $500. He is told
that with the so per cent reinsurance
clause attached his policy will cost him
$500, but that he can have policy without
the oo-insurauce clause attached, policy
as certain and definite as he could wish, at
1.5O per cent rate or 81 80 cost His cupid
ity overmasters his prudence and he takes
the $500 policy with its conditions. A total
loss comes. He draws $500 under his policy
and has saved $3.50 In the cost. The chance
was with him. He does not complain. A
partial loss comes, say $500. He draws five
eighths of the amount of the policy. or 1854.
He loses because he did not know that he
would have fire. He complains because
the company would not give him both ends
of the lever. Shall he be heard to COM
plain that he cannot get his own, what he
bought and paid for2 To say that he has
not and cannot get his own at the hands Of
insurance companies in Vermont, is a re-
Election on our laws and their execution.
To say that he may buy one thing and de-
mand another is to announce new rule of
contracts.
To this statement of the case no
opponent of co-insurance can seriously
object. Should Mr.. Mcfarland state
the whole case to any applicant for
insurance as frankly as he has done in
the above extract, how many of his
customers would thus be persuaded to
take a policy with the co-insurance
clause attached? No intelligent man
having his senses will go "into the
Insurance mart with eyes wide OPEN
and buy that sort of insurance. Oh
course if he, on full understanding
of the clause in all its bearings, consents
to become a co-insurer of his own
property, he must endure all the con.
sequences; but the trouble will be that
all insurance agents will not be as frank
as Mr.. Mcfarland has been. Tndividu.
ais will be persuaded by the plausible
explanations of smooth-tongued agents
and, on one-sided or imperfect under
standing of the ultimate operation Of
the clause, will be induced 10 accept it
and will awake too late to full appre
citation of all the beauties of co.insur
ance. Right there is the danger to the
insured. To many, co.insurance is likely
to prove a delusion and snare.
If Mr.. Mcfarland will add to hi;
illustration of the "practical" operation
of the co insurance clause in the adjust
ment of loss a case like the following
or any other that he may evolve from
his own experience, the possibility Of
any purchaser of insurance accepting
the co.insurance clause with "his eyet
wide open" will be reduced to the van
ishing point: A merchant or manufac
turer carries stock-Or stock and machin
ery-valued at $40, 900. He insures TO-
$4,000 under the co.insurance clause
If he is damaged SIS 900 he will bt
allowed that sum, without abatement
on adjustment of his loss. But sup
pose he should increase his stock--a
some merchants or manufacturers d.
at certain seasons of the year--$2,000
aud before he has opportunity to in
crease his insurance to 80 600, he il
damaged by fire to the extent of $4,000
what sum would he then receive OF
the adjustment of his loss under the CO
insurance clause? The company would
be held for ive-sixths of the loss, o.
$6,6663, and the insured, as co.insurer
would be held for one sixth, or 81 1884
The case is not an improbable one
Let insurance agents illustrate the op
Grafton of the reinsurance clause by tn,
above and kindred examples, every on,
of which may be entirely within tn,
range of probability, and is it fair t.
assume that people having property t,
insure will tumble over each other il
their eagerness to secure the attachmen
of the coinsurance clause to their pol
iciesp And yet, in the face of tn,
| examples he himself cites, and thes