The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1894-05-27
AND GROUND RENT
The Question of Ownership of Ground
Rent Lots Again Up.

The discussion as to insurance on prop.
erty on lots held under ground rents was
very general among business men yester-
day. Tt has grown out of the recent trial
in the city court of the suit of E. Tolbert
against the Caledonian Insurance Com
! pany.
A prominent Insurance man, who is
| familiar with the facts, when asked
about the matter, said that some of the
| current reports are calculated to do the
insurance companies injustice, because
| they are not complete. In the Tolbert
case it appeared that the insured did not
own any interest in the land. She was a
tenant at sufferance, without any lease or
writing of any sort, and liable to be dis
possessed at any time the owner of the
property desired the land, simply paying
81 a month as rent. The agents of the
company never saw the insured until af-
ter the fire, the request for the insurance
having been brought to their office by an
insurance solicitor
The evidence was that the solicitor
and the agents of the company supposed
that the insured owned the land. Under
the rules of the company they would not
have insured the property had they
known the facts, and therefore. they
never entered into the contract invoked
by the insured. The agents knew moth
ing about the insured, whether she could
read or write, and had no reason to sus-
pect that she was not the. owner of the
land.
Tho ynN1f1ry y1raryi5nd hot he
policy should be void if the insured did
not own the land. The reason for this
rule, the insurance man said, is obvious.
1t is necessary for the protection of the
company After the fire, an adiuster
came down, saw Mrs. Tolbert, and asked
her about rebuilding the house, the
policy giving the company the right
to rebuild, and he was informed by
her that she did not care to rebuild, as
she did not own the land. This was the
first intimation to the company, or to any
one connected with it, that she was not
the owner The adjuster was advised by
the general counsel of the company, and
by its Savannah attorneys, that there
was no legal liability under the policy.
Although satisfied of this, he saw Mrs.
Tolbert and offered to payher what would
have fully Unidentified her for the loss,
even if she had been the owner of the
land. This offer was less than the amount
of the insurance, but the property was
over-iusured, and it was more than it was
worth, according to the estimate of a
prominent contractor.
In view of the fact that Mrs Tolbert
would have been compelled to move the
house soon after the time of the fire, if
the latter had not occurred, and the i'm
provements would have thus become prac-
tically valueless, the amount offered
would have been largely in excess of the
value. II also appeared that the Savan-
nah attorneys of the company advised,
Notwithstanding the fact that they were
satisfied that there was no legal liability,
that the company pay what the property
would be worth if Mrs. Talbert had
owned the land. No offer of compromise
was entertained. and suit was brought
against the company. After ii was put
to the expense and trouble Of defending
the suit, the company stood upon its legal
rights.
The point made by the company, it is
claimed, was more than merely tech
nical one, and meant that contractought