Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1894-05-31
INSURANCE Cases DECIDED
Opinion Handed Down by the
Superior Court.
THE EFFECT or THE RECENT LAW
insurance Conlpany's Con-
tention Sustained in Part.
Decision of the Case Of the Sussex Manu-
iacturin. Company Against the Royal
Insurance Company Opinion Handed
Down by the Superior Court.

The court handed down its decision
in tile case Of Horace X. Thurber, as
signee Of the Sussex Manufacturing Co,
vs.. the Royal Insurance Co, Of Liver
pool, a corporation existing under the
laws Of England, Friday afternoon.
On the 2Sih day OF April, 1891, the
Sussex Manufacturing 70. procured
from the Royal Insurance Co., of Liver
pool, a policy of insurance bearing the
lumber 4,23J ,364, in the sum of $500,
Of which $3.50 was npon tile two.story
factory building, with boiler house
attached, on lot Of land near George.
town. OF the remainder, $l75 was
placed on the engine, boilers and con.
nect!ons, and Sj75 on movable machinery
in the above described buildings. The
insurance was for period Of one year
from the 2Sth day OF August, 1891. The
premium paid on the policy was $50 so.
Stamped upon the face of said policy
were the following words, TO wit: AS
TO buildings only it is agreed between
the insurer and the insured that the
value Of the insured property is the sum
Of $2,3sS.n
On May 9TH, 1881, the Sussex Manu-.
featuring Co. insured the same property
in the Merchants Insurance Co. ut
Newark, n. j., for the SUN of $500, eX.
piring May 9th, 1892; the policy being
No. 7l5,s2 TWO hundred and sixteen
aud two third dollars being on the above
described buildings; fifty eight and one
third dollars on engines boilers and
their connections; S225 on machinery.
Stamped on the face OF this policy
were the following words: LAS 10
buildings only il is agreed between the
insurer and insured that the value of
the property insured is the sum OF
S3,O33
The property insured in both Of these
policies is the same. The same property
was also insured in nine other policies
issued by other companies, which are
not necessary u be considered here,
The said Sussex Manufacturing Co
assigned said policy No. i,239 1854 to
Horace X. Thuroer, the plaintiff, sep.
TENDER 18th, 1891.
The insured property was wholly de-
stroyed by fire on September 17tu, 1891.
This action is brought to recover from
the defendant the amount OF insurance
named in the aforementioned policy
The defendant resists, upon the ground
that the insurance is void under the act
of March 10Th, 1883, because after the
issuing Of the policy by the defendant
the plaintiff effected a subsequent insur-
ance upon larger insurance value
than the one agreed upon in this policy.
The act OF Assembly, passed March 29th,
1889, is in these words:
Section l. Whenever any policy of in.
surance shall be issued to insure any real
property in this State against loss by
fire, tornado or lightning and the property
insured shall be wholly destroyed without
criminal fault on the part OF the insured
or his assigns, the amount Of the insur-
ance stated in such policy shall be taken
conclusively to be the true value OF the
property and the true amount OF loss and
measure of damages Subject TO the proviso
hereinl and every such policy. whether
hereafter issued or renewed, shall have
endorsed across the face Of it the follow
ing: lit is agreed between the insurer and
insured that the value OF the insured
property is the SUN of s.; and this
estimate shall be binding oil both parties
as TO the value (provided that nothing
herein contained snail, in case of loss, pre-.
vent the company insuring from adjusting
the loss by replacing the property de-
stroyed.r
And in case any owner shall effect any
| subsequent insurance upon any larger
value than SO agreed, all insurance as we'll
as that then existing as that subsequently
obtained shall become void.
The language of the statute, the court
held, was so plain and unambiguous as
to relieve the court of any doubt in the
matter. The policy of insurance covers
both real and personal property and
! fixes the amount to be paid for each
| specifically in case Of destruction. The
statute in its terms related only to in.
surance issued on real property" The
court also stated that the statute was in
its nature penal, and should not be con.
strued beyond its terms and plain mean,
ing, unless there be some controlling
reason for SO doing.
The court cited the case of Merrill VS..
| Agricultural Insurance Co., 70 New
York, page 452, in favor of the divisi
bility of contracts, and the case of ESSEX
Savings Bank VS.. Meridian Fire Insur.
ance Co., II All. Reporter, $50, cogently
reasons for the indivisibility of contracts
In conclusion the court said:
We find a large number of cases which
hold the contract to be indivisible. baset
l
policy or contract OF insurance shall Dt
void. Where the amount of insurance il
in lump so that the value of each partcu
lar kind cannot be ascertained, OF necessity
the contract is invisible. But where thu
amount to be paid upon each particular
kind of property, is specifically named il
the contract itself, d strong current o
authorities maintain the divisl gility vi til,
contract.
We do not feel called upon, however, tC
decide this question. The policy specific
ally names the amount to be paid upoI
each species of property; and the statue o
our State expressly confines the forfeitur,
to the reality.
We therefore conclude that the policy i.
void as TO The amount insured upon tn,
reality. and upon the engine, boilers ant
their connections being respectively sos
and Sl75; and is valid as to the amount in
sured upon the personal property, viz
1878, and order that judgment be enterel
in favor of the plaintiff for the said sum o
500 with interest thereon from Septembe
18th, 1891.
The opinion was delivered by Chic
Justice Lore, Associate Judges Charlie
NJ. Cullen and David T. Marvel; con
curing.
The case was argued in the superio
courts of Sussex county by j.. Fran
Bacon Of Georgetown and Lewis {
VGndegrift of this city for the insuranc
company.