LEGAL DOCUMENT

Case: James L. Whipple, Trustee, vs. North British & Mercantile Fire Insurance Co.
Citation: 11 R.I. 139
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island
Decision Date: 1875-06-22
Docket Number: 
Pages: 139–141
Volume: 11
Reporter: Rhode Island Reports

Parties: James L. Whipple, Trustee, vs. North British & Mercantile Fire Insurance Co.

James L. Whipple, Trustee, vs. North British & Mercantile Fire Insurance Co.
After a loss bj1- fire the parties in interest fixed, the amount of loss and damage, “ subject to terms and conditions of several policies.”
In an action against the insurers: —
Held, that this adjustment meant “ subject to ” all the 11 terms and conditions of the policies ” not superseded by the agreement.
Held, further, that the question of liability was not affected by this adjustment, which only determined the amount due in case of liability.
Defendant’s petition for a new trial.
After the destruction by fire of certain insured property, the following agreement of adjustment was made by the parties interested : —
Cavendish, Yt., Nov. 20, 1873.
It is hereby agreed between J. L. Whipple, owner of stock and supplies in Stone Woollen Mill, situate Cavendish, Yt., and burned Nov. 11, 1873, and the representatives of the various Co.’s insuring same, to fix the loss and damage on same as follows:
Card-room . $1,241.07
Spinning-room.......15.00
Weave-room....... 1,399.50
Finishing-room....... 7,357.85
Subject to terms and conditions of several policies.
J. L. Whipple,
H. E. Bowers, ) for companies A. E. Moore, ) in interest.
L. Fairbanks, witness.
At the trial in this court, before a jury, of an action against one of the insurers, who was a party to this agreement, the presiding judge construed the words “ subject to terms and conditions of several policies,” as referring only to tbe terms and conditions of payment, and so instructed tbe jury.
A yerdict was rendered for tbe plaintiff, and tbis petition was filed.
June 22, 1875.

DtJKEEE, C. J.
Tbe exceptions make it necessary for us to construe tbe agreement referred to in them. We think tbe true construction is tbat tbe parties agreed to fix tbe loss and damage, subject to tbe terms and conditions of tbe policy, and tbat tbe words, “ subject to tbe terms and conditions,” mean subject to all tbe terms and conditions, excepting such as are superseded by tbe fact tbat tbe loss and damage bave been fixed. Ordinarily, without doubt, an adjustment of loss is equivalent to a promise to pay tbe loss so determined ; for ordinarily an adjustment implies a liability for tbe loss and a consequent promise to pay it. But an adjustment does not necessarily imply liability, and accordingly it may be made under a reservation of tbe question of liability. Tbis appears to bave been done in tbe case at bar. Tbe adjustment was made subject-to tbe terms and conditions of tbe policy ; and by tbe terms of tbe policy tbe company is relieved from liability in case certain conditions or stipulations are not fulfilled by tbe insured. Tbe adjustment, in view of tbe qualifying words, means simply tbat tbe company will pay the loss as fixed under the terms and conditions of the policy, if under them the plaintiff is entitled 'to payment. The plaintiff contends that the qualifying words are ambiguous, and that, in the light of the testimony, they must be construed to relate simply to the provision of the policy in regard to the time of payment. We are not of that opinion. We think the construction we have given is the obvious and natural construction ; that it is the correct construction ; and that,, if it had been adopted at the trial, the ruling and charge would have been other than they were. Nezu trial granted.
B. N. Lapham Charles A. Wilson, for plaintiff.
Charles Hart, for defendant.