Case Name: Amy Haas, Resp't, v. The Montauk Fire Insurance Co., of Brooklyn, App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-06-25
Citations: 17 N.Y. St. Rep. 732
Docket Number: 
Parties: Amy Haas, Resp’t, v. The Montauk Fire Insurance Co., of Brooklyn, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 17
Pages: 732–733

Head Matter:
Amy Haas, Resp’t, v. The Montauk Fire Insurance Co., of Brooklyn, App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed June 25, 1888.)
Insurance (Fire)—Forfeiture—When waived by company.
Any negotiations or transactions after knowledge of forfeiture of a policy of fire insurance on the part of the company recognizes the validity of tho policy, and the forfeiture is waived.
Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon a verdict rendered by a jury in the Kings county cir cuit, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial on the judges minutes. The opinion contains all the necessary facts.
H. C. M. Ingraham, for app’lt; C. Furguson, Jr., and James C. Church, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
The plaintiff was the owner of certain premises in Brooklyn, situate on the north-easterly corner of Eighty-sixth street and Port Hamilton avenue, in Brooklyn. The premises had been used as a dwelling as to a portion thereof, and for a saloon as to the remainder, for many years. In 1882 the defendant issued a policy for one year upon the building, which was described in the policy as <:a frame dwelling-house." Among the conditions of the policy was one denominating lager beer saloons as extra hazardous, and another providing that an extra hazardous building made void the policy. This policy was continued from year to year, as originally issued, and the saloon business was carried on in it as usual. The property was burned in March, 1881. In the fall of 1886 the plaintiff's husband went to the defendant's office and saw the bookkeeper, and applied to him for permission to make improvements on the premises. This officer went to the secretary in the back part of the room. They conversed together, and one of them asked Mr. Haas what improvements he was making. He was told that the saloon floor was to be renewed and the ceiling raised. They then told Mm he might go ahead. The secretary was the proper officer to grant the permission. The policy required written consent. This may be waived by the defendant, and the secretary of the home office was the defendant. Haight v. The Continental Ins. Co., 92 N. Y., 51.
Any negotiation or transaction, after knowledge of forfeiture on the part of the company, recognizes the validity of the policy, and the forfeiture is waived. Titus v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 81 N. Y., 410.
The verdict of the jury and the judgment thereon must, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.
Pratt and Dykman, JJ., concur.