Smyrna times., 1921-06-01
SHORT CLAUSE IN INSURANCE
POLICY AID DOVER MERCHANT
CASE TRIED BEFORE KENT
COURT ATTRACTS ATTENTION
Precedent Set by Court in Two Suits
Regarding Insurance, and the First
of the Kind Ever Known

On Friday last an opinion was
handed down in the Superior Court of
Kent county in two cases of assumpsit
namely James B. Bice VS.. The Home
Insurance Company and the case of
Bice VS.. The Industrial Insurance
Company, to recover for damages
done by fire at the Bice store in Dover
in 1920. The cases hinged on one
short clause as follows:-"It is agreed
between the insurer and insured that
the value of the insured property is
of the sum of S g." In the case
stated the amount was fixed at $4,000.
The case is the first of its kind, not
only in the history of Delaware but
no cases have been found elsewhere
in the country, making therefore the
opinion of the Court of Delaware, the
first of it's kind and a precedent in
such insurance cases.
The case has attracted more than
ordinary interest and in view of the
fact that the Delaware statute is diff
ferent than that of any other state
makes the case more important to the
legal fraternity and establishes a pre-
cedent for other States in future cases.
The judges sitting in the case were
Chief Justice Pennewill and Judge
Boyce. w. Watson Harrington and
James M. Satterfield appeared for the
plaintiff, and Henry Ridgely, Arley B.
Magee and G. Ross Veasey maryland
BARI for defendants. Both cases in
a volved the same questions of law and
it was understood that the decision in
one should apply to the other case.
The cases were heard by the court on
an agreed statement of facts, case
stated.
The court reviewed the case anC
concluded as follows:
ain our statute, as in the Nebraska
law, it is first stated what shall be
the measure of damages in case Of
total loss, viz: the amount of the in
surance written in the policy, and ther
follows in the Delaware statute, bu
not in the Nebraska law, the provision
that in every policy on real propert!
there shall be Endorsed across the fac
of its value of the property agree
upon by the parties. 1t is impossible
for the court to see any sound reason
for this agreed valuation unless it i
intended to furnish the basis for set
Element if there shall be partial loss
"The statute not only requires tina
the value of the property shall b
agreed upon and Endorsed upon tn
policy, but that such estimate shall b
, binding on both parties as to value
We construe this language to meal
that, if any controversy shall arts
i between the insurer and insured in
i volving the value to be placed on tn
property covered by the policy, tn
agreed value shall govern in asceI
8 tanning the amount of loss.
n ''Many of the cases cited at the al
gument on both sides, were cases tina
/ involved personal property. We al
dealing with insurance policies on res
4 property, and with the construction Q
q a Delaware statute governing tn
Il same. For that reason we think mos
: of the citations are hardly applicabl
I to the question before the court.
4 "If it should be thought the col
n struction the court has placed on OF
q statute will work a hardship upon II
surers, it may be said that the insul
err need not agree to valuation OF tn
I property insured that is far below il
3 real value. If there is an agreemeI
we think the value agreed upon mu
8 govern in case of partial loss.
Judgment will be entered in eaC
case in conformity with this Opinic
and the agreement in the case stated
u The court then made the followiT
q order:
"And now to wit: This goth day
u May, A. D. 1921, the above and for
going case having been heard on
case stated and having been fully a
gued by counsel on both sides, Il
court is of the opinion that the $500
stated in the policy, as the agre'
value of the property insured, is co
trolling as to the actual cash value
said property described in said poll
at the time when the loss happen
as provided by the reduced rate co
@ tribution clause set forth in said pr
icy;
cit is, therefore, ordered, adjudg