The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1895-04-10
Equity Between Insurance COmpan-
les and Their Patrons.

Up to this time the insurance companies
have been able to defeat nearly all legislation
in reference to insurance which has been at
tempted in the interest of the people, and
South Carolina is STILL fruitful field for the
practice OF their art in taking money from
n people on policies which they never In
tend TO pay in full, and which they never do
pay in full.
The insurance agents, and especially the
"adiusters." may be chosen because of their
special fitness for the work of taking in the
money, and then. as far rs possible. defeating
the claims Of their unfortunate victims.
which may be deemed excessive To pay, but
which were all right, when premiums were to
be received.
AS soon as fire occurs there is more or less
flourish Of trumpets, and a great show OF call
ing in carpenters to "estimate' the actual loss
on property which the company had accepted
before the fire at specified sum and received
money on the policy at that price.
For the company TO plead that the property
was over-insured is to do one Of two things,
either to plead the baby act in which they
were incompetent TO do business, or else to
charge the insured with fraud in insurng for
d
suing policy for more than the worth Of the
property, then how is it possible to prove
that fraud without proving that the agent,
or the company, was a party TO that fraud.
The insurance company which seeks equity,
| must come into Court with clean hands.
While we have no positive proof that the
companies encourage agents to take policies
| for as large a sum ns the people will pay for.
yet we have 10 proof that any company has
ever discouraged that form of swindlng. We
| have never heard Of an agent being dismissed
for any such proceeding. We all know that
| 800 or $500 is too high figure at which to in
sure piano. But are not such policies Is.
sued? When issued do not the companies
at their headquarters Immediately recognize
the Swindle? We contend that they do, or ii
they do not. then we believe they are incom-
petent to hold their position.
Every man In this country knows that the
average dwelling house can be built for u lit
tie more than 500 a room, and that there
are few houses which should he insured for
that much. but, for all that. policies for much
larger sum are issued. The premium Is paid
for years, and then possibly the house is
| burnt. Adjusters come around. They claim
Il big per cent. discount on the building for
decay. Then they find the brick pillars and
chimneys. a discount must be made for
them, too. The insured carelessly included
| in the cost of his house the paings, the well,
the brick, and never took the natural depre
citation into consideration. A paid mechanic
comes along and then proposes TO rebuild the
| house for much less than the insurance poll
| cy. The sufferer by fire is distressed. He is
confronted by troubles, and in this condition
a large proportion of the insurers fall an easy
prey TO the arts of the "adjuster."
There has been lot OF sneering at people
| who insure for what the companies say is too
| much.
No sum for which premium is received is
too much. The company can better agree on
the value OF house while it is standing than
after IL is in ashes.
Another matter. Insurance companies may
think that the owners of over-insured houses
handle fire too carelessly. We contend that
the companies are not biameless If they over
insure house, and 1t is burnt. Did they not
offer, by their act of fover.insurance, premium
on incendiarism? We contend that they did,
and being party to the fraud they should
suffer the consequence. If 1t can be proved
that the owner Of over-insured property set a
torch to 1t, then the compan les ought 10 be in
dicted as aiders and abettors before the fact,
and their claim for reduction Of policy ought
to be the only proof necessary TO convict
them.