Court Opinion

ID: 9704033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:19:21.776189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:54.886102
License: Public Domain

McCown, J.,
dissenting.
I concur generally in the dissent. In addition, it should be noted that the two statutes involved here can be reconciled within the general-special classification limits. The provisions of the New York standard policy apply to “all direct loss by fire or lightning” to any property, real or personal, insured under such policy. The valued policy act provides: “Whenever any policy of insurance shall be written to insure any real property in this state against loss by fire, tornado, or lightning, and the property insured shall be wholly destroyed, * * * the amount of the insurance written on such policy shall be taken conclusively to be the true value of the property insured and the true amount of loss and measure of damages.” § 44-380, R. R. S. 1943. (Emphasis ours.)
The valued policy legislation was enacted many years *618before the amendment to the statute requiring the use of the New York standard form without variation. There are no express words indicating an intent to repeal any other statute contained in either of the two statutes. To assume that the Legislature intended to repeal the valued policy act when it enacted the statute dealing with the complete New York fire insurance policy form many years later ignores practical realities as well as traditional rules of statutory interpretation.
The ancient maxim that repeals by implication are not favored “has peculiar force in the case of laws of special and local application, which are never deemed repealed by general legislation except upon the most unequivocal manifestation of intent to that effect.” Mancuso v. State, 123 Neb. 204, 242 N. W. 430. There was no such intent here.
Spencer, J., joins in this dissent.