Case Name: HEILBRUNN v. GERMAN ALLIANCE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-05-31
Citations: 135 N.Y.S. 769
Docket Number: 
Parties: HEILBRUNN v. GERMAN ALLIANCE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 135
Pages: 769–773

Head Matter:
HEILBRUNN v. GERMAN ALLIANCE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
May 31, 1912.)
1. Insurance (§ 156*)—Fire Insurance—Mortgagee Clause—Construction.
The contract between an insurer and the mortgagee as expressed by a mortgagee clause in the policy is distinct from the contract between the insurer and the1 owner.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. §§ 316-322; Dec. Dig. § 156.*]
2. Insurance (§ 606*)—Payment—Insurer’s Subrogation to Rights oe
Mortgagee.
A provision that whenever the insurer should pay the mortgagee any loss under the policy, and should claim that as to the mortgagor or any owner no liability therefor existed, the insurer should to the extent of such payment be thereupon subrogated to all the rights of the mortgagee under all securities held as collateral to the mortgage debt, contained in the mortgage clause of a policy of fire insurance, is legal and binding.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. §§ 1504-1511, 1514r-1516; Dec. Dig. § 606.*]
3. Pleading (§ 146*)—Fire Insurance—Mortgagee Clause—Construction.
A policy of fire insurance contained a clause providing for payment to the mortgagee as interest might appear, and that, whenever the insurer should pay the mortgagee any loss under the policy and should claim that as to the mortgagor no liability therefor existed, it should to the extent of such payment be thereupon subrogated to all the rights of the mortgagee under all securities held as collateral to the mortgage debt. After a loss a mortgage debt was fully paid and satisfied, and the mortgagee’s assignee thereafter sued the insurer upon the mortgage clause. Held, that the contract with the mortgagee was for indemnity, and that the insurer’s liability thereon was measured, not by the amount of policy, but by the amount of loss to the mortgagee, and that since by payment to the mortgagee after the loss the collateral was discharged, and there was nothing to which the insurer’s right to subrogation could attach except the money paid to the mortgagee in satisfaction of his debt, the insured without counterclaiming might show such satisfaction in reduction of the amount recoverable.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 294-296; Dec. Dig. § 146.*]
Ingraham, P. J., and McLaughlin, J., dissenting.
♦For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by Simon Heilbrunn against the German Alliance Insurance Company of New York. From an order denying a motion to sustain a demurrer interposed to a separate defense contained in the answer of the defendant and for an order directing judgment on the pleadings, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
See, also, 202 N. Y. 610, 95 N. E. 823.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, CLARKE, SCOTT, and DOWLING, JJ.
Jacob R. Schiff, of New York City, for appellant.
Leo Levy, of New York City, for respondent.

Opinion:
SCOTT, J.
The plaintiff appeals from an order denying his motion for judgment upon the pleadings which consist of a complaint, answer, and demurrer thereto. Plaintiff sues as assignee of one Henry Gerken, the insured, under a mortgagee clause attached to a policy of 1 insurance issued to one Cecelia M. Siff. The sufficiency of the complaint has already been established. 140 App. Div. 557, 125 N. Y. Supp. 374; 202 N. Y. 611, 95 N. E. 823. By the separate defense now demurred to it is alleged that as to the owner the policy of insurance became null and void and that prior to the commencement of this action and before the assignment to plaintiff, Henry Gerken, as mortgagee, ceased to have any interest in the premises insured, for the reason that the mortgage debt had been fully paid, satisfied, and discharged. It is not alleged that the mortgage debt was paid before the loss occurred, and it is therefore to be assumed that it did not occur until afterwards. The question then is whether a mortgagee may recover the amount secured by the mortgagee clause attached to a policy of insurance when the mortgage debt was still diue and owing when the loss occurred, but has been fully paid and satisfied before suit is brought against the insurer.
[ 1 ] It is settled that the contract between the insurer and the mortgagee, as expressed by the mortgagee clause, is quite separate and distinct from the contract between the insurer and the owner. The question is not therefore complicated by the circumstances that as between the insurer and the owner the policy had been avoided.
The mortgagee clause contained the usual subrogation provision, the legality and binding force of which has long been recognized in this state. Ulster County Savings Inst. v. Leake, 73 N. Y. 161, 29 Am. Rep. 151. It reads as follows:
"Whenever this company shall pay the mortgagee (or trustee) any sum for loss or damage under this policy, and shall claim that, as to the mortgagor or any owner, no liability therefor existed, this company shall to the extent of such payment be thereupon legally subrogated to all the rights of the party to whom such payment shall be made, under all securities held as collateral to the mortgage debt, or may at its option pay to the mortgagee (or trustee) the whole principal due or to grow due on the mortgage, with interest, and shall thereupon receive a full assignment and transfer of the mortgage and of all such other securities, but no subrogation shall impair the right of the mort? gagee (or trustee) to the full amount of claim."
The contract of insurance with the mortgagee was nothing more than a contract of indemnity, and the liability of the insurer was measured, not by the amount of the policy, but by the amount of loss incurred by the insured. Undoubtedly, upon the happening of the fire, there arose an apparent liability on the part of the insurer to pay to the insured so much of his loss as was covered by the policy, but coupled! with this liability was the absolute right on the part of the insurer to be subrogated pro tanto to the securities held by the mortgagee as collateral to the mortgage debt, or, in other words, to the mortgage. After the fire, by' payment or foreclosure, the mortgagee has been paid his debt, and consequently the collateral has become discharged, and there is nothing to which the insurer's right of subrogation can attach, except to the money paid to the insured in satisfaction of his debt. In other words, when the action was commenced, the insured had suffered no loss for which he was entitled to claim indemnity, because he had realized the whole amount of his debt from the security which he had agreed! to deliver to the insurer if the latter paid the loss. Having thus collected his debt out of the security, he had put it out of his power to fulfill his subrogation agreement. I do not consider that it was necessary for the defendant to admit its liability, and then counterclaim for a like amount realized by the insured! out of the collateral security. The question in an action of this character is how much is due to plaintiff when the action is begun. If the defendant is, as in the present case, merely as indemnitor, and the plaintiff has, before suit brought, been paid from other sources all or a part of the amount for which the indemnitor had undertaken to be liable, it is perfectly competent to show that fact by way of de^ fense, and thus reduce the amount recoverable.
In my opinion the order appealed from was right, and should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
CLARKE and DOWLING, JJ., concur.