Court Opinion

ID: 5343969
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-08 06:09:48.102509+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:29:37.515893
License: Public Domain

Taylor, J. (dissenting in part).
I concur in the prevailing opinion except as to method of apportionment. No question of fraud or coinsurance being involved and this being a case of over-*675insurance in the sense that the total coverage of the several policies exceeds the losses, “ sound value ” seems to be of no materiality in making the apportionment. I am unable to approve the theory adopted by the majority of the court and, in the particular circumstances here presented, of all the methods which have been discussed by the courts the Kinne rule seems most reasonable, it being stated in the first formula on page 264 of Reed’s Adjustment of Fire Losses (McGraw-Hill Insurance Series, 1st edition). At pages 246-275 of this volume various methods of apportionment are elaborately treated. The Kinne rule is substantially the same as the one followed in Mayer v. American Insurance Co. of Boston (2 N. Y. Supp. 227). As I read the opinion in Ogden v. East River Ins. Co. (50 N. Y. 388), the views therein expressed by way of dicta seem to favor apportionment "under the method just mentioned and below indicated:
Loss on rear building............................... $3,655 75
Loss on front building.............................. 375 00
Total loss on both buildings..................... $4,030 75
Percentage of loss on the rear building, 90.696%.
Amount of $6,000 policy’s applicability to the loss on the rear building (90.696% of $6,000).............. 5,441 76
Amount of $10,000 policy’s applicability to the loss on the rear building (90.696% of $10,000)............. 9,069 60
$2,000 policy on rear building alone.................. 2,000 00
Total applicable insurance on the rear building... .$16,511 36
Then the $2,000 policy should pay 2000/16,511.36 of $3,655.75, or.................................... 442 90
The $6,000 policy should pay f of 14,511.36/16,511.36 of $3,655.75 plus f of $375, or...................... 1,345 70
The $10,000 policy should pay § of 14,511.36/16,511.36 of $3,655.75 plus | of $375, or..................... 2,242 15
Total loss..................................... $4,030 75
To these allocations interest should be added from June 23, 1934.
A blanket or general policy is — with certain limitations — a specific policy. In the instant case, for example, if the loss on the rear building after this fire had been large enough to require it, there can be no doubt that the whole of the coverage of the blanket policies remaining after deducting the $375 loss on the front build*676ing could have been applied on the rear building loss, regardless of the sound value of the front building. Wherefore, after deducting the $375, the blanket policies became — in effect —■ specific as to the rear building loss, as specific as the $2,000 policy. Assuming ‘ ‘ over-insurance, ’ ’ i. e., more total insurance than the aggregate amount of loss, the theory I suggest would fit any losses to any extent upon either building alone or upon the two buildings, up to the total coverage of all the policies.
The method adopted by my brethren throws far too large a proportion of the loss upon the $2,000 policy. The unsoundness and inequity of the method utilized in the prevailing opinion may be readily appreciated by assuming that .the policies and the losses were all as we find them and that the “ sound value ” of the rear building had been $4,000 and that of the front building $1,000,000. For then, the insured would not recover in full for his loss, although full recovery is an essential under all the authorities when the total coverage exceeds total losses.
In action No. 1 — Policy No. 978733: Judgment modified on the law and facts in accordance with the opinion and as modified affirmed, together with-the order, without costs.
In action No. 2 — Policy No. 975017: Same decision and like cause of action as in companion case of Rankin Funeral Home, Inc., v. Rhode Island Insurance Co., No. 1 (247 App. Div. 670, 676), decided herewith.
In action No. 3 — Policy No. 124497: Same decision and like cause of action as in companion case of Rankin Funeral Home, Inc., v. Rhode Island Insurance Co., No. 1 (247 App. Div. 670, 676), decided herewith.