Evening journal., 1894-05-26
THE HONORS REST EASY
Decision on the Valued Policy
Law Rendered.
THE CONTRACT WAS DlvlslBLB


Insurance on the Personal Property Of
the Sussex Manufacturing Company But
Not on the Real Property-In Increas-
ing the Valuation Figures tho Sussex
Company Made Fatal Error.
In the Superior Court, yesterday after
noon, decision was rendered in the case
Of Horace X Thurber, assignee of the
Sussex Manufacturing Company VS. the
Royal Insurance Company, Of Liverpool,
whidh case was argued by j. Francis
Bacon. for the plaintiff, and Lewis C
Vandegrift, for the defendant, at the
April term Of the Sussex county court.
The decision WAS read by Chief Justi
Lore
Brief History of the Case.
The decision detailed the history Of the
case, the substance of which WAS as fol-
lows.
"On April 2s. 1891. the Sussex Manu-
featuring Company procured from the
Royal Insurance Company, Of Liverpool,
policy Of insurance In the sum { (
$1,000 $3.50 thereof being upon two
story fastory building with boiler
$l75 thereof on engine, boilers and their
connections $675 on fixed and movable
machinery In the buildings the insurance
August %, 1891. the premium paid being
$52 90.
Stamped upon the face Of the policy
were the words AS to buildings only II
is agreed between the insurer and In
sured that the value Of the insured
property is $2,3S3
Decided Change IN Valuation.
"On May 5, 1891. the company iu-
sured the same property IN the Mer
chants Insurance Company, of Newark
N j., for $500 On the face OF this
policy we're the words: AS to buildings
only. IL is agreed between the insurer
and insured that the value Of the
property insured Is the sum of SO 033
The property insured in both policies is
the same The property was also in
sured in nine other policies issu By
other Insurance companies, which are
not necessary to be considered
The company assigned the Royal
Insurance Company's policy TO Horace
X. Thurber on September 1S, 1891, and
the property was wholly destroyed by
fire on September IL, 1891. The action
was brought to recover from the de-
fendant the amount Of insurance named
la the -policy. The plaintiff resisted
upon the ground that the insurance was
void under the act of March 2J, 1889,
because after the issuing OF the policy by
the defendant the plaintiff effected sub
sequent insurance upon larger insur-
snee value than the ane agreed upon In
| ha ha unf of 10
March 80, 1889, is in these words
The Valued Policy Law Provisions.
Section /. Whenever any policy Of insur-
| ance shall Doe issued to Insure any real prop
erty In this state against loss by fire. tornado
or lightning, and the property insured shall
be wholly destroyed without criminal fauli
ON the part of the insured, or his assigns, IN,
amount OF the-naurance stated In such policy
| shall be taken cOncluslNely 10 be the tru,
valueOf the property Insured and the true
amount OF loss and measure OF damage Sub
iect 10 the prOviso nereineand every such pol
Icy, whether hereafter Issued or renewed
shall have endorsed across tho face Of ~ 4
following; 1T Is agreed between iosurer and
insured that the value OF he insured property
IL the sum Of g; and this estimate shall bt
binding on both parties as 10 value; provided
however, that nothing herein contained shall,
in case of loss, prevent tie cOmpany insured
from adjusting the loss by replacing the prop
"And in case any owner shall effect any sub
seQuent insurance upon any larger valu,
than 80 agreed, all insurance as well as thai
then eAisting AS that subsequently obtained
shall become void"
Insurance on the Realty Became Void.
The last named policy" said th,
court, being subsequent in date anC
effected upon larger insurable value by
the very terms of the statute the Insult
ance on the real estate became void Tn,
language OF the statute in this regard Il
/ 80 .lafst md A N -. Ifa
the court of any DOUBT The policy o.
insurance covers both real aud persona
property and fixes the amount 10 be pai,
for each specifically ia case Of destruc
tion. The statute in its terms relate
only TO insurance issued on real prop
erty. The question therefore remain
whether the insurance on the persona
property is also void. The statute is il
It's nature penal and shoald not be con
structed beyon its terms aud plain mean
+ ing, unless there is some controlling rea
SOUS for so doing
Given Rise To Nice Distinctions.
1T is claimed for the defendant tina
this contract Of insurance Is iadivisible
and II void as to the real property mus
also be void as TO the personal The In
3 divisiblity or entirely of contracte o
insurance mas perhaps given iise To a
many nice distinctions, and as mucl
conflict Of authority as any other ques
tion; and many authorities have Deei
citeo on beth sides, which we have care
fully considered. We lind large mum
Der OF cases whicl hold the contract L
, be indivisible, based upon condition il
the policy, that the policy or contract o
insurance shall be void.
Divisibiiitv ia Maintained.
{ "When the amount Of insurance - i
2 lump 81 that the value of each particu
{ lar kind cannot bs ssceftained, OF neces
sity the contract is iudivisible But
where the amount % be paid uF~n eac
particular kind ot property Is specilicall
named in the contract itself stron
current Of authorities maintains tn
divisibility ot the contract.
We 20 not feel called upon, however
90 decide these questions The pohc
( specifically names the amount 20 be pai
' upon each species Of property aud To
q statute OF our state expressly oonhne
+, the forfeiture 10 the realty We ar