Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-07-13
FIRE INSURANCE DECISION.
Interest Of the Holder of the Policy I'm
the PrOperty.

Interest of the Holder of the Policy I'm
the Property.
One Of the opinions filed in the Court of
Appeals yesterday was that in the case of
the Hamburg-Bremen Fire Insurance Com
pany against John Vance Lewis, a decision
Of great interest to the public This was a
case where Mr.. Lewis. part owner Of a GER
tain unfinished dwelling in Takoma Park,
ID. c., secured thereon an insurance i'm the
company. The main agency of the insur-
ance company was situated in New York
city, the company being represented In this
city by the firm Of Heiskell. & McLeran.
The policy was obtained from the local
agents or the company by one A. NJ Cor
man, general solicitor of fire insurance
risks The policy was issued to Mr.. Lewis
as attorney, the policy reciting that the
building was occupied a dwelling The
policy was issued June g. $780, and the
building was destroyed by fire August 6,
1871. before 1t had ever been occupied. The
company refused to pay the loss upon the
ground that the risk had never attached un-
der the policy. The amount of the insur-
ance was 800. and Mr.. Lewis claimed that
ne had an insurable interest in the property
exceeding that amount, but there was no
allegation in his declaration that the build
ing was insured as an occupied dwelling
Not the Authorized Agent
MI Lewis claimed that Mr.. German fully
represented the agents Of the company, and
that 1t was his duty to know that the
building was not occupied. But the Court
OF Appeals. reversing the judgment found
below in Mr.. Lewis favor held that Mr..
German, being merely a general solicitor
OF insurance.. with the right to place the
FISK Wherever he could, did not act as the
duly authorized agent of the company and
mat 1t was The expressed duty of Mr.
Lewis before accepting the policy 10 Oh
serve just how II read and would operate
The terms of the policy constitute the
measure of the insurers liability, and. in
order 10 recover the assured must show
himself within those terms.
The concluding paragraph of the courts
opinion, written by Mr.. Chief Justice Al
vey, Is particularly interesting 1t is as
There is, however, another question in
the case proper to be noticed, raised I'm the
first prayer of the defendant 1.-THE insurance
company for instruction, and that is as 20
the effect of the clause in the first condi-
ton In the policy, which declares that if
the exact interest OF the assured in the
property, whether as owner, trustee.
corsignee, factor, agent, rortgagee lessee
or otherwise, be not truly stated in the
policy. then, and I'm every such case, this
policy shall be void 1t is true the policy
was issued to the plaintiff attorney
simply. but for what purpose as attorney
whether to execute a conveyance of the
land, to rent or sell it's not stated.
and, therefore, no interest is disclosed. The
r,aintin declares Upon the policy as alb
solute owner of the property insured. with
out reference to his character Of attorney.
alleging loss to have been sustained by
himself as owner, and the court Instructed
the jury that the fact that the plaintiff
had no beneficial interest in the building
or the land uron which it was situated is
no defense to this action This. We think.
was error. Such a principle ignores the
fundamental principles of fire insurance,
that Of interest in the property and in
demnity to the assured in respect Of that
interest, and would allow any person to in
sure the property of another in which he
had no interest, and recover to the full
amount OF the insurance. thing contrary
to public policy, and which Is denounced
by all the authorities We must reverse
the judgment, and Ii Is so ordered