Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-04-08


81 2 Wood on Insurance. section 626.
g. Where there has been misrepresen-
tation by insured in his Application, OF
a breach OF condition In his policy, ana
the company. with full knowledge there
Of. and without denying it's liability on
that ground requires proofs or loss,
which are furnished at some trouble ana
expense. whether first or additional
proofs, or requires insured, by virtue OF
the contract OF insurance, to do some
act or incur some trouble or expense
1t will be deemed to have waived oe-
fence Of Misrepresentation or breach. and
cannot change its ground and claim
policy was invalid. Cannon VS.. Home
Insurance Company, 50 Wis, $50: German
Fire Insurance Company VS.. Grunert, liz
H., 6s: Penn Fire Insurance Company
VS.. kttle. 80 Mich. 81; Titus VS.. Glehns
Falls Insurance Company. n. A. Nv
ROby VS.. Insurance Company. lzo 10,
$40; McNally VS.. Insurance Company, l5'
ID. 3S9; Ostrander on Insurance. sections
1928, May on Insurance, section JO4 a.
WAIVER, &C.
Virginia Fire and Marine Insurance Com
pany VS.. Goode & Co. Affirmed. Opin-
ion by Rely. j.
The main questions I'm this case are de-
Company VS.. same defendants. supra.
This company. in acknowledging re-
ceipt Of proof of loss, simply stated. with
out pointing out any defects, that the
proof ton the blank form fiiled out by the
insured was not made up In conformity
with the policy contract, and was not
satisfactory"
Held: 1t was obligatory upon the com
pany TO specify the defects. and us ran
use to do SO was a waiver OF any oDJec-
| ton 10 the proof of loss, 2 May on ms.
! third edition. sections $3.50 Il. n denial
| of all liability under the policy absoiNes
insured from furnishing any preliminary
! proof of loss. or from correcting delecls
| i'm it if already furnished. 1t would De an
| idle formality, which the law does not re-
quire. Portsmouth Insurance company
VS.. REYNOLDS Administrative. - Graft
| Gl3; West Rockingham Marine FIRE IN
surance Company rs. Sheets a Co.; %
| Graft. Si.
! TO the question in the application.
! "WilI YOU agree 20 keep reliable person
! i'm the building at all timesY' The an
/ swer was: w b. GoOde sleeps IN the
| building" The evidence shows that Wheh
| application was being filled up the soli-
/ citing agent was informed that Goode
! habitually slept ia the building. but tha'
IL was impossible for him to sleep there
/ every night, as he had TO be absent some
! times when purchasing goods, and for
! other purposes. and If company insisted
upon some ones sleeping there every
/ night. the answer must be mo
The agent said this was not the mean
ing of the clause: that the company did
not expect that some one should sleep In
/ 10Th
answer. as afterwards written. Nv. b
Goode sleeps in building" would be all
that was necessary, and will be satisfac-
tory to the company, and that 1t was So
written at agents dictation, and with ful
knowledge on his part Of the entire situa-
ton.
Held: If the facts communicated to the
agent had been directly communicated
to the company. it would have been
estopped to assert forfeiture, because no
one was sleeping i'm the building the
! night OF the fire His knowledge being
imputabe to the company, it is equally
estopDed. though these facts were not
disclosed by him to the company, or tC
! it's general agents, whose employee NJ
was Goode & co. VS.. Georgia Home In
! surance Company. % Va, 1892. This con
| clusion renders any opinion unnecessary
! as to whether the answer was promls'
! sorry or merely an affirmative warranty
AS a somewhat similar answer was helt
TO be in Virginia Fire and Marine IN
! surance Company vs.. Buck q Newman
/ IS Va. 5l7.
. The Court did not err i'm admitting
testimony as to what passed between the
| agent and insured when the answers tC
| certain questions were given such evi
dence is proper in case Of insurance con
| tracts-not for the purpose Of contradict
ing the writing. but 10 show that th'
representation, as it was written. ouSh
not TO be used against the party upon th'
ground of an equitable estoppeL Lynch
burg Fire Insurance Company VS.. West
70 Va, $40.
If is not necessary to 90 over the IN
structious seriatim, as the questions o.
| law embodied i'm them have been so latel!
! decided by this court. Mutual Fire In
! surance Company vs.. Ward, % ). Il. Il.
20g. Farmers and Mechanics. Ben. +
/ ASSN VS.. williams. ID, 2ll; Goode x co
VS. Georgia Home Insurance company
| supra.
Those given for the plaintiff correct!
expound the law; those asked by the de
PENDANT. and refused were in comic
Win the principles OF its decisions.
SUMMARY.