The Press., 1895-08-01
Number IS.

comes 8 total loss, it will not affect him at all. If the loss is 30 per cent, or over, of the value of the property, 1t will not | affect him at all, as that will make to- tai loss, as far as the insurance is con- | cerned, using up, as it does, the entire policy. If, however, the loss is a partial loss, and less than 80 per cent. of the cash value of the property, the assured becomes co-insurer to the amount of the difference between the face of his pol icy and 80 per cent. of the value of his property. In this case he should have had an insurance of 1888, ,000. He only had $9O,OOO. He therefore becomes a co-insurer to the extent of $9,000, being 8-S8 or 1-11 of the loss, he acting in the capacity of an insurance company to that amount.
 The simple thing for the assured to re- member is this: If he has an 80 per cent. co-insurance clause on his policy, he must at all times keep his property insured to the extent of 80 per cent. of it's value. If his property increases in value, he must increase his insurance; while, if his prop erty decreases in value, he can if he de- sires, decrease his insurance.
 Co-insurance is not new inventiOn It has always been used in marine insur- ance, and with acceptance both to the in-
 
 years, however, it's use has become more general. The only trouble that has arisen from it's later use is, that in some cases, not having been sufficiently explained, it has been misunderstood. Many have supposed that they were obliged to have it attached to their policies, while some have not realized till the loss occurred just the effect it would have upon their insurance in case they did not fulfill their part of the contract by keeping their property insured up to 80 per cent. of its value. This will hereafter be remedied, as the following note and caution will be printed on every cO-insurance clause:
 NOTE: The reinsurance clause is not manda- tory. The assured has the option of declining 1t by paying different rate.
 NOTE: Care should be exercised by the as- sured to see that at all times the amount of tn- Surance on each item insured by this policy shall not be less than 80 per cent. of it's value; otheT wise It's operation in case of partial loss would work to the disadvantage of the Insured by de- creaStng the amount of his policy.
 This, to my mind, removes every ob- jection to the co-insurance clause, for the reason that the assured knows when it is offered to him that he need not have it unless he wishes it, that it is simply question of rate, and that the decision, whether it shall be upon his policy or not, rests entirely with him. He is cautioned as to what he must do to prevent it's working any injury to his insurance and is told plainly if he does not heed that caution, just what the injury will be. Suppose this legislature should enact this bill into law, and the companies be un- able to use the co-insurance clause, the result would simply be that you had pro- hibited the assured from taking advan- tage of reduced rate, and forced him to pay higher rate. About twelve years ago the state of North Carolina passed a law forbidding co-insurance. The con- panies raised their 1ates, and at the very next session of the legislature, without being asked by the insurance companies, that law was repealed, the people de- manding that they be allowed to use the co-insurance clause, and thus secure the reduced rate; and it has been in general use in that state ever since. The state oi Main he'd Praeiselyr-the GxpaEi- ence, and if Connecticut should pass this law. her manufacturers and merchants and business men would soon be clamor- ing for it's repeal. Its aim is to equalize the rates, and in it's workings 1t is equita. ble and just Some have said that it is impossible to understand 1t, but do not believe that there is a senator in this chamber who does not at this moment thoroughly comprehend it and indorse it.
 l would stand shoulder to shoulder with any senator upon this floor, and in- sist that no one should be compelled to accept this clause; but 1 would as cer- tainly stand shoulder to shoulder with no one should be prohibited from accept ing it if they desired it, and this is all there is to this co-insurance question.
 THE ORIGIN OF THIS BILL.
 Let us look for moment at the origin of this bill. A certain manufacturing concern in this country had loss. On that portion of the property in which the fire occurred there was, on building and contents, an insurance to the amount of $35, ,00O. The adjuste1s came, and, after making careful examination, found that the amount of the loss was not equal to the amount of the insurance. Realizing however, that it would be a task to ap. praise d loss of this complicated charac. ter, they decided to offer the assured g lump sum, exceeding ill amount what their judgment, founded on experience told them the loss would be. They there fore offered them $29,0O This proposi tion the firm refused to accept, and de cided to leave the decision as to thu amount of their loss to arbitration. The firm chose one of the best judges of tht value of that kind of property. The com panies chose another, equally good. Tn, property was appraised, and, without hay ing to call in the third arbitrator, the, decided that the total loss was $27, ,087. .67 which, you will notice, was about $2 ,00t less than the companies had offered them This made the assured feel as if they haC been cheated out of the difference, al | oh %lo Roo khov, was with the Hebrew clothier on th Bowery, who said to his assistant on, morning "Isaac, .mein poy, your fade has pin fool dis morning, und his hear is broke. He has lost ten dollars. "Abraham, mein fader, how vas dat ? said the boy. "Isaac, mein poy, a coos ' toner axed me dis morning the brice of five-dollar coat. I tolt him fifteen dol lars, und he took the coat und paid m, vidout a wort. Und if I had axed in twenty-five dollars, he vuld haf taken i shoost the same. Oh, Isaac, oh, Isaac mein poy, comfort me, for I haf lost tel dollars und mein heart is broke."
 , A member of the firm which had this fire loss, and who is a member of tho present house of representatives, has re ligiousIy spent almost the entire session in endeavoring to remedy that fancieC wrong by introducing and endeavOring tC ? have passed this policy bill But this firm has yet another grievance. The 8( per cent. clause was on their policies, anC on that they suffered shrinkage, as the! had failed to keep 30 per cent. insured and how much do you think that shrink age was? The member aforesaid ha made the burden of his wailing song O grief this winter, the wickedness of the 8t per cent clause, and his great mission ha' been to have a law passed forbidding its use, that no one else should suffer by it a. they had done. And before I procured the figures, imagined that they had los many thousands, and perhaps even mil lions by it. I have the figures here, anc what do you think, brother senators, tn, amount of the firms loss through the co insurance clause was2 It was the i'm