Source: https://chestofbooks.com/business/law/Law-Of-Contracts-2/Section-VII-Of-Proof-And-Adjustment.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 17:05:49+00:00

Document:
(b) Worsley v. Wood, 6 T. R. 710, 2 H. Bl. 574; Mason v. Harvey, 8 Exch. 819, 20 Eng. L. & Eq. 541; Columbia Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, 10 Pet. 513. It will be no legal justification of an omission to procure the certificate, that the persons from whom it was to be obtained wrongfully refused to give it. Worsley v. Wood, supra; Leadbetter v. AEtna Ins. Co. 13 Maine, 265. In determining the continuity of the magistrate to the place of the fire, whose certificate is required, the place of his business will be regarded, and a nice calculation of distances will not be made. Turley v. North American Ins. Co. 25 Wend. 874.
(c) Norton v. Rensselaer Ins. Co. 7 Cow. 645; N. Y. Bowery Ins. Co. v. N. Y. Ins. Co. 17 Wend. 359; Sexton v. Montgomery Co. Ins. Co. 9 Barb. 191. It is not necessary to state the nature of his interest in the account of the loss. Gilbert v. N. A. Ins. Co. 23 Wend. 43. The notice may be oral, unless required to be in writing. Curry v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. 10 Pick. 536. The manner of the loss, it has been held, need not be stated. Catlin v. Springfield Ins. Co. 1 Sumner, 434.
(d) See Bodle v. Chenango Co. Ins. Co. 2 Comst. 53; Heath v. Franklin Ins. Co. 1 Cush. 257; Clark v. New England Ins. Co. 6 id. 342; Underhill v. Agawam payment should be made to the mortgagee for a loss, the company, if claiming that it was not liable to the mortgagor or owner, might either be subrogated to the mortgagee's rights without affecting the latter's right to recover the whole of his claim, or might pay the mortgagee's claim and take an assignment, does not subject the mortgagee to conditions which before the assignment related to the mortgagor, but is an independent agreement with the mortgagee. Hastings v. Westchester Ins. Co. 73 N. Y. 141; Hartford Ins. Co. v. Olcott, 97 Ill. 439; Chamberlain v. N. H. Ins. Co. 55 N. H. 249.
1 Johnson v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 112 Mass. 49; Edgerly v. Fanner's Ins. Co. 48 la. 644. Innocent mistakes in the preliminary proofs will not bind the assured, Conn. Ins. Co. v. Schwenk, 94 U. S. 593; McMaster v. Ins. Co. of N. A. 55 N. Y. 222; Mut. Ins. Co. v. Newton, 22 Wall. 32; Maher v. Hibernia Ins. Co. 67 N. Y. 283; American Ins. Co. v. Day, 10 Vroom, 89; if the insurers are not thereby surprised, Waldeck v. Springfield F. & M. Ins. Co. 53 Wis. 129. That notice from the real party in interest, though not the assured, will be enough, see Watertown Ins. Co. v. Grover, etc Co. 41 Mich. 131. Where the nearest magistrate not concerned in the loss had suffered by the fire, and the assured is suspected of setting it, the former cannot give a certificate. Wright v. Hartford Ins. Co. 36 Wis. 522. Posting the proofs within the time limited was said to be sufficient in Badger v. Glens Falls Ins. Co. 49 Wis. 389. See O'Reilly v. Guardian Ins. Co. 60 N. Y. 169, that the filing the preliminary proof may be equivalent to the notice required, while the latter will not satisfy the former.
2 Killips v. Putnam Ins. Co. 28 Wis. 472.
Ins. Co. id. 440; Priest v. Citizens Ins. Co. 3 Allen, 602; Sexton v. Montgomery Co. Ins. Co. 9 Barb. 191; Clark v. New England Ins. Co. 6 Cush. 342.
(e) Francis v. Ocean Ins. Co. 6 Cowen, 404; Tayloe v. Merchants Ins. Co. 9 How. 390; Allegro v. Maryland Ins. Co. 6 Harris & J. 408.
Cush. 342; Boynton v. Clinton Ins. Co. 16 Barb. 254; Franklin Ins. Co. v. Coates, 14 Md. 285; Firem. Ins. Co. v. Crandall, 33 Ala. 9.
(g) Westlake v. St. Lawrence Co. Ins. Co. 14 Barb. 206. But see Smith v. Haverhill Ins. Co. 1 Allen, 297.
(h) Edwards v. Baltimore Ins. Co. 3 Gill, 176. See Colombian Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, 2 Pet. 53.
(i) Pettengill v. Hinks, 9 Gray, 169.
(j) Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Wright, 22 Ill. 462.
U. S. 238; Mason v. Citizens Ins. Co. 10 W. Va. 572. See Brink v. Hanover Ins. Co. 70 N. Y. 593; s. c. 80 N. Y. 108; Beatty v. Lycoming Ins. Co. 66 Penn. St. 9; Devens v. Mechanics' etc. Co. 83 N. Y. 168.
1 Williamsburg Ins. Co. v. Cary, 83 Ill. 453; Harriman v. Queen Ins. Co. 49 Wis. 71; Aurora Ins. Co. v. Kranich, 36 Mich. 289; Roberts v. Cocke, 28 Gratt 207.
2 Eastern R. Co. v. Relief Ins. Co. 105 Mass. 570; State Ins. Co. v. Todd, 83 Penn. St. 272; Hibernia Ins. Co. v. O'Connor, 29 Mich. 241.
3 Examination of the assured on oath will have the effect of a waiver, Badger v, Phoenix Ins. Co. 49 Wis. 396; but material questions only need be answered, Titus v. Glens Falls Ins. Co. 81 N. Y. 410; Ins. Co. v. Weides, 14 Wall 375. Where loss occurred in the Chicago fire on October 8th or 9th, and notice and proof of loss were given on November 13th following, as the office of the company was destroyed, and the assured did not know where to find its officers, the delay was held reasonable. Knickerbocker Ins. Co. v. Gould, 80 Ill. 388.
4 If an insurer, after a loss and an opportunity to investigate, no fraud or deception being practised upon him, agrees to pay, and the insured to receive, a certain sum in full, recovery cannot be defeated by showing a breach of warranty in the policy, though unknown to the insurer at the time of such agreement. Stache v. St. Paul Ins. Co. 49 Wis. 89, citing Smith v. Glens Falls Ins. Co. 62 N. Y. 85.
5 And if the loss is payable at a certain time after proof, no action is maintainable before such time. Ins. Co. v. Weide, 14 Wall 375 ; Winnesheik Ins. Co. v. Schueller, 60 Ill. 465. Steen v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co. 89 N. Y. 315, decided that when the time for bringing an action is limited in the policy to a "term of twelve months next after the loss or damage shall occur," the limitation begins to run when the cause of action accrues, and not when the actual destruction occurred.
(jj) Riddlesbarger v. Hartford Ins. Co. 7 Wallace, 386.
(jk) Mayor of New York v. Hamilton, etc. Ins. Co. 39 N. Y. 45. See also Keine v. Home, etc. Ins. Co. 42 Mo. 38.
(k) Wyman v. People's Ins. Co. 1 Allen. 301.
(l) Liscom v. Boston Ins. Co. 9 Met 211; Trull v. Roxbury Ins. Co. 3 Cush. 267.
(m) Woods v. Masterman, Ellis on Ins. 14; Levy v. Baillie, 7 Bing. 349.
1 Tasker v. Kenton Ins. Co. 58 N. H. 469. But a condition that differences should be decided by arbitration, and that no action could be maintained until after an award, nor unless brought within a year after the loss, was declared void, in Leach v. Republic Fire Ins. Co. 58 N. H. 245. See also Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Badger, 53 Wis. 283; Canfield v. Watertown Ins. Co. 55 Wis. 419.
2 Maher v. Hibernia Ins. Co. 67 N. Y 283; Beck v. Germania Ins. Co. 23 La, An. 510; Ins. Cos. v. Weide, 14 Wall. 375; Clark v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 36 Cal. 168. But a gross over-valuation of the assured's own property, though not made with intention to defraud, will avoid a policy conditioned that all fraud or attempt at fraud, by false swearing or otherwise, shall cause a forfeiture. Leach v. Republic Fire Ins. Co. 58 N. H. 245.
(n) Leeds v. Cheetham, 1 Simons, 146. See Brown v. Quilter, Ambler, 619.
1 A lessee, bound to rebuild in case of fire, has no claim to be reimbursed out of the lessor's insurance money. Ely v. Ely, 80 Ill. 532.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.