Court Opinion

ID: 9831215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:55:40.825087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:32.673862
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In a counter proposition in briefs of appellees, Lake Dallas Gin Company and the Denton County National Bank, it is insisted that the insurer had waived its defense, based on the procurement of additional insurance, by reason of the fact that, after learning of such additional insurance, the insurance company had its adjuster to investigate the fire and to take a statement from the insured as to the cause of the loss and induce the insured to agree to the amount of loss shown in the nonwaiver agreement. And there was a special plea by appellees presenting that contention.
Having invoked such action on the part of the insurer as a waiver of the defense stated, appellee Denton County National Bank is in no position to avoid the agreed valuations of losses sustained as a result of the fire as shown in the adjuster’s agreement.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Ohio in Erie Brewing Co. v. Ohio Farmers’ Insurance Co., 81 Ohio St. 1, 89 N. E. 1065, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 740, 135 Am. St. Rep. 735, 18 Ann. Cas. 265, that a mortgage clause attached to a fire insurance policy at the time it is executed providing for payment to the mortgagee as his interest may appear is not-an assignment of the policy-to the mortgagee, nor does it bind the mortgagee to pay any premiums or do any act necessary to keep the policy in force; and, in the absence of fraud or collusion, he is bound by the award of the appraisers provided for in the policy as to the amount of the loss, although he was not a party to, or had any notice of, the appraisement and award. Many decisions are cited in support of that holding, including Chandos v. American Fire Ins. Co., 84 Wis. 184, 54 N. W. 390, 19 L. R. A. 321. Other decisions are noted and discussed, which reach a contrary conclusion, but it is pointed out that in some instances,- at least, they are distinguishable by reason of provisions in some of the policies indicating that the mortgagee would have a right to toe heard when such adjustment of values is reached. In this case the mortgage clause specifically provides that it is subject to the terms of the policy, and one of the provisions of the policy is that, in the event of loss of any manufactured article, the loss shall be ascertained “by the insured and this company, or if they differ, then by appraisers as hereinafter provided,” and there is no provision in the policy which would indicate that the insured would not have the right to adjust the amount of the loss without consent of the mortgage holder. And, since appellee has failed to file the re-mittitur suggested in our original opinion, the judgment of the trial court is reversed in its entirety, and the cause is remanded for errors pointed out in our original opinion.
Appellees’ motion for rehearing is overruled.
We have also duly considered appellant’s motion for rehearing, and the same is also overruled.