Court Opinion

ID: 9299929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-12-02 17:06:26.414475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:13:38.654136
License: Public Domain

BLODGETT, District Judge.
It is claimed on the part of the complainant that there was a mistake — a mutual mistake — between the parties in reference to the locality of this tobacco, and this bill is brought to reform that mistake and compel the insurance company to pay for the loss sustained by the complainant by the destruction of the tobacco which they supposed they had insured. There is no evidence that the insurance company at any time supposed that this tobacco was in 187 at the time they described it as being in 189 *1104and 191, nor is there any evidence that there was any mistake on the part of the insurance company in reference to the locality of the tobacco. It is true, that according to the evidence, the tobacco was in 189 and 191, but it is equally true that to hold that the insurance company would have insured if they had known it was in 187 the same as in 189 and 191, would be virtually to compel them to make a new contract, instead of reforming one which they actually did make. Indeed, there is evidence in the case going to show that the agent of the defendant would not have taken a risk in this company, the Continental, upon this tobacco if he had known it was in 187, because the company was already carrying as large an amount of risk on property in that building as the rules of the company allowed, although he would probably have insured the tobacco with some other company; but because he would have made an insurance with some other company it does not follow he would have made one with the Continental, nor does it follow beeause the Continental, by its agent, was willing to insure in 189 and 191, they were therefore willing to insure in 187. Locality is an important matter in taking risks upon property, and if the courts can be allowed to say that property described as in one locality in a policy of insurance may, in point of fact, be elsewhere, fifty or a hundred feet away from that locality, it may with equal propriety be a mile away and still be covered by that policy. In other words, there would be no security for insurance companies if you were to spread their liabilities over an indefinite territory when the company supposed it confined to a particular locality.
I am therefore of opinion clearly, that the relief cannot be granted, that there was no mistake on the part of the insurance company that can be reformed by a court of equity.
The bill will be dismissed.