The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1903-03-24
JUDGE EMORY SPEER ON
2 INSURANCE POLICIES
Decision in O. S. S. Co. VS. Aetna Insurance Com.
pany Case

from opinions which seem to confirm
this proposition"
Features of Opinion.
After quoting from these cases. the
opinion continues: Surely il cannot
now with propriety be commended that
the vast business of insurance, con-
Quoted in the main by trained minds
of the keenest intelligence and broad
est experience, with the enormous
values therein invested, is now carried
on by contracts as informal, as am
biguous and incoherent, as those which
received and no doubt deserved the
reprobation of the courts. from whose
decisions we have quoted" A num-
Der of decisions by judges of the high
est rank and greatest renown are cited,
and all agree that there is no room
for the admission of parol evidence to
construe a contract expressed in terms
which are TO be understood in the plain.
ordinary and popular sense" The
deposition is declared to be incompe-
tent evidence.
The policy on which suit is brought
stipulates This insurance is hereby
understood and agreed to be in effect
reinsurance of the risks which are
or may at any time he assumed by the
assured Ohe Ocean Steamship Com
pany), and the assurer agrees to pay
the assured in full all claims for such
losses arising from perils enumerated
in the policy as the assured may in
their judgment settle for with the
owners of the merchandise" The opin-
ion then points out the distinction be-
tween double insurance and reinsur-
ance, and states that this is a policy
of reinsurance entered into by the in
surer for its own protection, to secure
itself from having to pay loss.
Difference in MethOdists.
The measure of recovery in case of
partial loss in marine insurance is
strikingly different from the measure
of recovery in fire insurance. If a
house is insured against fire for 5000
and the value of the house is $4,000
and the loss is $1,000, the insured re-
covers the full value of his policy
Under similar circumstances in marine
insurance he only RECEIVERS 81, 500. it be-
ing considered that as to that part of
the value which is not insured he is
his own insurer and must contribute to
the loss to that extent.
Judge Speer decides while this is
policy of marine insurance, or a sea
policy, that it is also a policy of re-
insurance, and that there is an express
stipulation by which the underwriters
agree to recoup the Ocean Steamship
Company for all their losses in full to
the extent of $25,000"
He continues: 1T requires a refine
ment of subtlety and casuistry not US
ually present in the practical admins
tration of law, in contested cases, to
eXonerate the insurance company from
a payment of more than IS, 900 when it
agreed to pay 900, and which will
require the Ocean Steamship Company
to lose $4,000 when it had taken the
precaution to protect itself against a
loss $1,000 greater than that sum-"
The opinion concludes:
But although marine insurance, it
is a case of reinsurance and no diff
ference in this particular exists be-
tween marine and fire insurance. In
reither case is it a wager and in both
CO ses the first insurer becomes entitled
to a complete indemnity. Then since
1t appears that this was a fire loss es-
pecially protected by this policy of
reinsurance and that the Ocean Steam
ship Company has been obliged to pay
an amount of loss greater than that
reinsured by the policy of the Aetna
Insurance Company under review, the
libellant is entitled to be fully. indemni-
fed to the amount stipulated in that
policy and decree accordingly may
be taken"