Case Name: Stephen Le Roy and others, Respondents, v. The Market Fire Insurance Company of the City of New York, Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1868-03
Citations: 39 N.Y. 90
Docket Number: 
Parties: Stephen Le Roy and others, Respondents, v. The Market Fire Insurance Company of the City of New York, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 90–97

Head Matter:
Stephen Le Roy and others, Respondents, v. The Market Fire Insurance Company of the City of New York, Appellants.
Where a policy of insurance against loss by fire in express terms declares the survey, or description of the premises referred to therein, to be “ a part of the policy ” and “ warranties; ” such description is to be so construed, and not to be regarded as a representation merely.
A warranty if broken defeats the policy; the insurer may insist upon its exact truth, according to its tenor.
In such ease, it is error to submit to the jury the question, whether the particulars, in which, at the time of issuing the policy, the premises did not correspond with the description, increased the risk or not.
In regard to mere representations, the rule is otherwise.
Appeal from judgment of General Term of the second district, affirming judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
The action was brought to recover on a policy of insurance issued by the defendant to the plaintiffs, for two thousand dollars.
The defendant alleges in the answer, that certain representations were made by the plaintiffs, to induce the defendant to enter into the contract, which were false, whereby the risk was increased, and the policy thereby avoided. The cause was tried at the Dutchess County Cir cuit, and it appeared upon the trial, that, on the 5th day of June, 1861, the plaintiff effected the insurance in question, as follows:
“ $1,233.75 on their part one and £art two story frame building with additions attached, including water-wheels therein and occupied as a paper-mill, situate in Rhinebeck, Dutchess county, as per survey, Wo. 280, filed m the office of the Parle Insurance compm-y, W. Y., and $766.25 on their fixed and movable machinery and fixtures contained in said building. Other insurance permitted without notice unless required.”
In' the policy it is provided, that “ this policy is made and accepted in reference to the terms and conditions herein contained and hereunto annexed, which are hereby declared to be a part of the contract, and are to be used and resorted to in order to determine the rights and obligations of the parties hereto in all cases not herein otherwise specially-provided for.”
In the conditions of insurcmce annexed to the policy are the following provisions:
“1. Applications for insurance on property must be in writing, and must specify the construction and materials of the building to be insured, or containing the property to be insured, by whom occupied, whether as a private dwelling or how otherwise, its situation with respect to contiguous buildings and their fconstruction and materials, and whether any manufacturing is carried on within or about it; and, in relation to the insurance of goods and merchandise, the application must state whether or not they are of the description denominated hazardous, extra hazardous, or specially hazardous, and such survey and description shall be taken ' and deemed to be a part and portion of the policy issued thereon, and warranty on the part of the insured.
“2. If any person effecting insurance in this company shall make any misrepresentation or concealment touching" the risk to be assured ; or if, during the existence of this policy, •or any renewal thereof, the risk'shall be increased by any means within the control of the insured, or by the occupation of the premises for more ho.zcm'dous purposes than are permitted by this policy; or if the insured, at or before the taking of any renewal, shall fail to notify the company of any increase of the hazard, whether within or without the premises, and have the same indorsed hereon, — this policy shall be void. Every renewal shall be deemed to be made upon the faith of the representation on which the original policy was granted, unless represented by a new description of the risk.”
The policy conditions and survey form together but one contract, as it is expressly stipulated that the survey and the representations therein are to be deemed a warranty.
It also appeared that policies for the same amount were taken out by the plaintiffs in three other insurance com panies, one of them the Park Fire Insurance company, and that a survey had been made in reference to the last policy which was on file in the office of that company, which the defendant claimed was adopted by the plaintiffs as a part of the policy issued by the defendant. The material facts relating to the survey are sufliciently noticed in the opinion. The survey contained statements as to the situation of the' property, the water, the means of employing it for the ex-tinguishment of fires, etc., which the defendant claimed was a warranty. Exceptions were taken to the charge of the judge, and his refusal to charge, which, with the points made, are also stated in the opinion. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, in which judgment was entered. The defendant appealed to the General Term, and the judgment was affirmed, and the defendant appealed to this court.
John Thompson, for the appellant.
Homer A. Nelson, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Pee Curiam.
This case is distinguished from Le Roy v. The Park Insurance Company in this, that by one of the conditions of the policy in this case, the representations contained in the survey referred to in the policy, are made part of the policy, and are declared to be warranties. This must be deemed assented to by the plaintiff, when he accepted the policy, and it is therefore the contract between the parties. If these representations are warranties, it was error to submit to the jury the question, whether the particulars, in which, at the time when this policy was made, the premises did not correspond with the description, increased the risk or not. The rule of the charge to the jury, in this respect s true as to mere representations, but not so of warranties these the insurer may insist upon according to their tenor.
To assume, then, that the survey referred to in this policy was a mere representation, and submit to the jury the question of materiality, was error, for the policy of these defendants was issued after this survey was made.
On the question whether the survey produced on the trial was made as a survey by the plaintiff, and was intended as the basis of the insurances to be effected, or, on the other hand, whether there was another survey which the plaintiff supposed was the survey referred to in the policy, was in doubt upon the evidence, but that did not warrant an assumption by the court, in the charge to the jury, that there was no warranty.
If the Market Insurance company—the defendants—made the insurance in good faith, in reliance upon the survey produced on the trial, while the plaintiff supposed another survey was referred to, it may be true that the minds of the parties did not meet in any contract of insurance.
A new trial may throw more light upon that question.
The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered; costs to abide the event.