The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-02-13

a-usurs q Tire lrsara-cs o. ire ansuat
/ pad la premiums
Tae proposed Iaw = eesig1ef sgmpiy .
I ccrspeg TIE companies 70 pers7rrn their
pornoz CT re contract Having zsrse9 .
I Insure property az certain sxee SIR. ard
having collected premiums OF re szs.s
% that amount. tAs proposed lzw estsg1
them from denying thaf tse property &C.
stroTe9 IS worsa tazt ar1c1as-
Il iz argued o. the PARK @ the insurance
companies taat q lar % TIE kind ofserz
prsrnIu-n upoa fraud and iaeezaiar.sr1.
taat 4 Il were enacted. persons would e.
sure their property FOR far nsore taan IS
value and destroy & for the purpose CT CO.
iectiEg the Insurance. sonsy. TIE answer
20 tais = obvious. An Insurance company
has no moral -igat . insure property To-
more than & IS w0rth: ard z TIE agents
o. the company 90 50 for TIE purpose %
collecting additional premiums iAe cora-
pany Is responsible for the acts of SIS
agents. Il Is 4 comparatively easy matter
for an insurance company 20 Determine n
advance precisely hoE much s. r. prepared
% ins1re any piece o. property fer. Loan
agents have Mtsls difficulty in making a
Ike sppralssnleEt for the purposes % Their
business. Having determined upon TIE
amount % insurance which they are Wiling
to take upon certain property. ard having
collected premiums upon the basis of TIA.
amount. the payment &c the fun sun n
case OF total loss would seem an obvious
duty
i the insurance companies have no con-
daence IN their agents. Il they believe that
the agents place heavier insurance than
the value % the property would warrant.
for the purpose OF securing q heavier per-
cent2ge out % the premiums. that can De
rernedied by mere careful consideration In
the choice OF agents ana BY discipIinlng
such as are guilty OF this offense.
The fact OF the case Is that It Is the pres
ent system. not the proposed law. which Of
fers premium for crime. II every piece
OF property insured was carefully apprais-
ed 81 advance OF insurance; II insurance
was limited 10 a trlae less than the actual
value OF the property. wherein would be
TIE AaAAAeEAAef4A 10 StA& II ~ sAsE tA.& ans
company" AS it stands. II careless or
reckless insurance agents issue policies FOR
amounts far in excess of the value Of the
property insured, because by so doing they
can make a larger commission. they place
standing temptation in the way or the
owner OF the property TO realize on his pol
Icy: and a man who would commit arson
company is quite likely 20 be prepared 10
prove that his property was worth the fun
amount for which II was insured. by per-
jured testimony. IL need be.
But II is at worst a very trihing percent
age OF the people IN any community who
enter into their relations With an Insurance
company with criminal intent The aver
age insurer mas no Intention Of misrepre-
senting the value OF his property when he
applies for insurance, and few are so en-
amored with the idea OF paying out money
that they are anxious TO pay any heavier
insurance premiums than are necessary.
As a practically uniform rule. they insure
solely with the desire 70 protect themselves
from loss IN case OF accidental fire. In the
aggregate the people Of the United States
pay in. for this protection. far more than
they receive. Having paid the premium
demanded by the company. and having re-
ceived a policy guaranteeing the payment
OF a specific amount IN case OF loss, il
there comes a loss the insured should re-
ceiYe that amount. unless the loss has been
occasionod By his own criminal act
We do not think the passage OF the act
would impose any serious burdens upon
the insurance companies. They certainly
have % ia their power 10 protest them
selves from fraud or imposition. They can
limit the amount % insurance 10 a certain
percentage OF the value OF the property. Il
they elect. and they can appralse the value
OF the property much better and easier
when IL Is IN existence than they can after
IL has been DESTROYED