The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1899-02-01
THE r. T. BOOTH CO.,
I3I fremont ST. Boston.
THE STANDARD POLICY.
Judge Foster Declares the Arbitration
Clause Unjust.
ESPECIAL TO THE PREss.j

Aususts, January 3l.-On Thurs
day afternoon, there will be a
hea ring before the insurance committee
on the bill presented by Representative
Morey of Lewiston to repeal the arbitra-
ton clause of the Standard policy law
passed in 1895 After the introduction of
the Morey bill, State Insurance Commits
sionsr Carr, in an interview with the
PRESS correspondent, came out strongly
in favor of the law in its present form,
Now MIR. Morey adds to the material for
discussion the following letter which be
has received from Judge Enoch Foster
and which will be presented to the
committee at its session on Thursday:
Portland, Me-. Jan. 25, 1892.
NV Dear Morey Your letter of this
and, asking my opinion in relation 10
the proposed change in the law relating
to fire insurance, abolishing the arbitra.
tion clause, came TO me on my way to
Wiscasset yesterday.
lnasmuch as you have asked me, l will
state frankly that in my opinion 1t is "a
most pernicious clause, or rather con.
dition precedent to the assured's right
of recovery.
was surprised that such law was
eysr passed in Maine. For 3S years, (from
1862 to 1880 those who we're insured had
the right of having the amount of their
loss determined by jury of IL men, in
a court. and under instructions given
them by "a Justice of the Supreme Court
of this state The law was well under
stood, and our law reports contain
numerous decisions defining the rights of
the insured AS well as of the insurer,
Today those decisions which the highest
court in this state have rendered during
haats.
no value In determining the rights OF the
insured, for the reason that In 1870, by
Chapter IS. of the public laws of that
year sweeping change was made, in the
enactment of a law that placed upon the
statute book what is known as the
standard Policy" insurance LAWN
which conditions. which seem TO me very
obnoxious. and detrimental TO the party
insured were made part and parcel OF
the policy and among which is the one
YOU name, taking from the insured the
right so long enjoyed OF having Its loss
determined by jury of his peers. We're
il not for the fact that IL was stated in
the conditions that lit is mutually
agreed, +" etc, that referees should be
chosen as therein stated, such condition
would be unconstitutional, and therefore
void. but / venture the assertion, that
not one man in n thousand who procures
insurance reads his policy certainly not
the present Standard Policies, and 1t
surprises him when he Is informed of the
conditions you are seeking, and most
Justly for the people of this state, to
have abrogated. but with such condition
in the policy. and his acceptance Of IL,
as the law now stands, he becomes bound
by IL equally AS though it contained his
own signature to the condition. That
law of 1895, seemingly not satisfied with
all the conditions set ferth in the so-cailed
STANDARD POLICY provides that aH
acts, or laws inconsistent Herewith ar Q
thereby repealed, and "A severe penalty Is
provided for issuing any other than the
STANDARD Policy" therein named, which
OF course means the policy there specified,
with thsse conditions, many of which our
courts have held, during the past 81
years, not to be binding on the party in
sured. Today. by this law OF 1898, they
are made binding and eifectual on the
party accepting such policy. AS Il have
said, the decisions of our highest courts
rendered prior 10 1855 are no longer au-
thority Ia determining the rights of the
assured. II the assured, after meeting
with loss by tire, is not satisfied with