Opinion ID: 1510213
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Requests to Charge the Jury.

Text: One of the errors alleged is the refusal of the court to charge that plaintiff failed to furnish to defendant proofs of loss and adjustment, and hence could not maintain action to recover. As above stated, the complaint alleged the furnishing of proofs of loss and full compliance with the terms of the policies; the answer admitted the receipt of the papers, but denied their sufficiency. In August, 1923, defendant made a motion that plaintiff be required to make its complaint more definite and certain in several respects, but did not ask for further or more definite proofs of loss. Furthermore, it appeared on the trial that defendant had retained the documents sent by plaintiff and purporting to be proofs of loss, and had never notified plaintiff of any defects therein, or insufficiency thereof, until after suit was brought. The court ruled that, under the circumstances, the defendant was estopped to question the sufficiency of the documents furnished. In this we think the court was correct. 38 C. J. 1161, § 473; Taber v. China Mut. Ins. Co., 131 Mass. 239, 253; Palmer v. Great Western Ins. Co., 10 Misc. Rep. 167, 30 N. Y. S. 1044, affirmed 153 N. Y. 660, 48 N. E. 1106. See, also, 26 C. J. 398, § 513; Scottish, etc., Co. v. McKone, 227 F. 813 (C. C. A. 8); Hamilton v. Ins. Co. (C. C.) 46 F. 42, 46, affirmed (C. C. A.) 59 F. 258. It is also contended that it was error to refuse an instruction requested by defendant that no recovery could be had on account of any damage to the meat by smoke, since no such claim was submitted to Lloyd's agent, and since an employé of plaintiff had agreed with Lloyd's agent that there was no damage by smoke. We think the refusal was without error, first, because there was no showing that the employé in question had any authority to make any claim to Lloyd's agent, or to waive the making of any claim; second, two of the reports made by Lloyd's agent do mention smoke, the second report saying that the whole cargo had got the reputation of being damaged by fire, smoke, and water, and the third report (made after the alleged talk with said employé of plaintiff) saying that dark patches on some of the meat had been found, and that they were in his (Lloyd's agent's) opinion caused by the smoke and heat. The defendant, therefore, had ample notice that smoke was an element of damage. A number of other requested charges were submitted by defendant. It is not necessary to discuss them in detail. It is sufficient to say that we have carefully considered them, and are of the opinion that, in so far as they were meritorious and applicable, they were covered by the charge of the court as given. Furthermore, at the close of the charge to the jury, the court, in order to assist the jury, gave them the following statement which he had prepared: Amount sued for by plaintiff, $581,016.14=2,376,356 kronen. Amount admitted by the defendant as damage to the insured meat by the fires, $28,331.29=115,875 kronen. There was sold in Sweden and Denmark 1,250,196.93 kilos, for 2,284,656.02 kronen. Expenses to sell it incurred, 465,921.48 kronen. Leaving net amount, 1,818,734.54 kronen. There were 162,175 kilos, sold in Germany, which netted, after deducting the expenses necessary to sell it, including transportation, 117,908.23 kronen. Total amount realized by plaintiff, after deducting expenses, 1,936,642.77 kronen. All of these amounts are undisputed, and were submitted to counsel for both parties and agreed on as correct, so far as the figures are set out. This statement, which both parties conceded to be correct, eliminates a number of points raised by defendant, and renders unnecessary a discussion of them. Other questions raised by the specifications of error have been examined and considered, but do not require special mention. Judgment affirmed.