Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1896-10-20
INSURANCE POLICIES
hrs Ltjuigld 10 BE- 0 YilId Portion
OF a Compliant in Cart.
Dr.I,roS or SUPREME COURT
In ihe suit Of tizib Il stephens
Agniu't an in,nra &C. comp ny
-Judlc, Nor rissints.

IN inc supreme court today Aaloci'
aio Justice Baflch tllay handed down
an oplnion, which was c1nsurftd In
by Chlei JuG!cs Z.n.. IN the case Of
Elizabeth J. Stephens W The Amofi.
eau Fire Ia'uranc, company. appel.
liant. The opiuiou tfilrms the iais.
ment Of the lover court.
This actieu IL q tuit on a ilfe insuf.
ance policy TO recover fer loss occa.
si'rgi By fife. The defendant inter.
Ioird Fdemlftti 10 the compliant on
the around that II docs not stale facts
sufficient " constitute Cause Of nc.
tluu. The demurrer waa ovetfuli d IN
tue rid court aal judgment entered
~ invor N tue rlaintin iOf sg3S anu
ccstt.
Tue complaint aver that the plain.
10, at tho time a ~ iuiufanee aud
destruction by nfr, was the owner VI the
pflpsuy Ia question; that said PROPERTY
was situated % Washington avenus,i In
OEdrb; that on NV. 30, 1895. Ia COZ.
sidefauon ofths payment u . premium
4 sl1.bl. the defendant, by It's gsnrfAl
agent mAdu Their policy Uf Insurance.
IT, vfiung, which p1licy was made
part Of the cumplail that on Dec. 10,
1885. tnr injured property was sreatiy
Damaged, aud tu part destroyed by
IRE, csusin l0ss 10 tho plaint ~ ia
the runi nj sl,suO, that between D..
,eniher u IA Aua .1iL tue pltinllfi
iutuishcd proof VI tho deitfuoti0n uBd
iOss anu performed Hll OF thu ooadi.
tons Of the Policy On hef TAfi; and
inally that, on February ., 1895, tbs
defendant refused - pay SUCH lose and
denied anI disciaimed liability.
Council fr the aIpsllent, Gays the
opininn, insists that the complaint,
independent OF tue Insurance. policy,
doel not state q cause Oi action, aud
that notwithslauiIns tho express
aveimunt 10 that effect, the policy
clusliiuirs no part Of tie complaint
aud cam 1 Lc considered In de,efmin.
ing IT, tuiilceucy.
ItisuOt claimed that the policy ID
not u properly executed aud valid Ia.
stiumuni, anu tue objection therefore
goes 10 the practice Of PLEADING by
setting iotth such an instIument Ia
iuu. Il amounts TO this, becAutr, In
effect, there eau he no difisieues va
sett,ns cot an Instrument In have
veIbA aad In aunexing n, anu
by proper reference mskinE u u
part OF tho pleagingt. posliby -
matter 81 arrangement ara
c1u veuisnce the fsfmsr M do woull
be ~ oiefAble, but In either cass tho
Instrument btc5mes a part Of the
pleading, anu u QUE Of these methods
IL obIcoli able, equally 90 IL tue
other. Whether, In "a suit uton n cOn.
tract, tile making Of tho Instrument n
part of the complaint Il tho best
practice, " " not necessary Tor "a. to
discuss. such practices appears 10 bo
fec1gpizfd Ia this State by statute, n
viii appear from sec. $3.50, Compiled
Laws VI Uhh, 1855.
Alter sustaining tho position taken
Ia tho fsfegoing by quotations from
tue practice Ia other ttstss, the opinion
goea on TO ssyi
10 10 Also asserted ny counsel for the
appellant that there " no alleg alton
that Iroui Of loss was furnished or no
tee given. pursuant 10 the require.
ments oithe policy, II this contpntiou
were admitted TO DO well taken, 10
would not avsil tue appellant, bscanss
the complaiut contains M Avrfmrnt 20
the effect that on tho 2sih day VI Feb.
fuAry, le0j, tue Defendant company
refused 10 pay tho loss aud denied and
disolslmvd any LIABILITY, aud wnere an
Insurance company disclaims disability
under the policy, aud refuses 10 pay,
proof of loss II not necessary. In suoh
cas- the loss becomes payable i'm
msdiately upon suoh disclaimer And
refusal, aud proof Of lose IL waived.
JUSTICE MINER DIssEsTs.
Associate Ju,tic. Miner filed dis.
senling opinion IA thu case Ia which
he says; III am aware OF some dscis.
ionsi ending ttl'uilA the view adopted
~ the court, but do not think such n
practice proper unu 10 be followed aud
adopted Ia this State 10 tbs extent indl.
Gated In the opinion Of tho eourl.D