The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1909-10-20

4
| Columbia, Oct. 15.-The valued
policy law Of South Carolina has been
matter of controversy between the
insurance commissioner and one of
the leading general agencies outside
the State, which represents a num-
Der of companies doing business in
| this State.
Under this law, the value of the
property is to be agreed upon and set
forth in the face of the policy at the
time the insurance is taken. But af-
ter loss frequently an adjuster finds
that the value stated in the policy and
| accepted by the agent of the COM
pany is in excess Of what the adjuster
believe to have been the actual value.
Then the adjuster proposes to settle
| on the basis Of the actual value under
the agreement, provided in the three
quarter co-insurance clause.
The application Of the law and the
position taken by the insurance COM
missioner in reference to it is illus
trated by case which recently hap
pened in this State. The value of the
| property set forth in the policy was
$1,000. The property was insured
for $1,000. After the loss, the ad-
juster taking the estimate of a con-
tractor that the property was worth
| only $1.100, proposed to settle at
three-fourths of $1,1OO, or for 1926
The insured appealed to the commits
sioner. The commissioner advised
| him that if the actual value was only
$1,10O, in morals he was entitled to
only three-fourths Of $1,1OO. or $685.
But that if the property was worth
the amount $1,000, set forth in the
! policy, then in morals and in law he
was entitled to the $1,000. The gem
eral agent in commenting upon the
value set forth in the policy took the
position that this was the value NAM
ed by the insured, and that it was un-
reasonable to expect the local agent
to know what the actual value was.
The position of Commissioners Nc
Master is set forth in his letter to the
general agents, which is as follows:
Dear Sirs: 1 disagree with you en-
tirely in your contention that it is un-
reasonable to put the burden of valu-
alton of property insured on the
agent. 1 believe so far as the COM
pany is concerned the agents valua-
tion should be accepted as conclusive
unless fraud be shown. The assertion
mas been made so frequently that
agents have no knowledge of build
ings and cannot correctly estimate
their value that it has become to be
believed by the agents themselves and
acted upon. I believe this is entire
~ unwarranted and wholly unfound-
ed in reason and in experience. II
seems TO me to be a perfectly proper
assertion to make that any agent who
cannot approximately estimate cor
rectly the value of any building which
costs less than S2.500 or $4,000.
should not be entrusted with the issu-
ance of policy of insurance. When
higher values are reached the agent
should have a relative idea of the
value, and if the insurance asked for
is approximately too near, or greater
than the supposed actual value. the
advice Of a person competent to pass
upon the value should be taken.
There probably is tendency with
| the insuring public to over-estimate
the actual value of property. when in
suring it, but do not believe that the
element of intentional purpose to
gamble on the loss is so great with
the insured as it is with the average
agent to hazard loss against the pre-
MUM for Over-insurance.
L believe it to be the duty Of the
companies to employ only such agents
as snail pass upon values when prop-
erty ts insured. There is no more cor
ruptng influence and no more dang
erous practice involving jeopardy to
wholly innocent third parties than
the dolce far niente' practice of
agents accepting the value set by the