Court Opinion

ID: 8844048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 16:50:55.876744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:05:17.460422
License: Public Domain

Lacombe, Circuit Judge,
(concurring.) This case is very fully set forth in the opinion of the district judge. There can be no doubt that when the policies on so-called “advances” were issued both the assured and the insurers undertook to describe some interest other and different from the ownership of hull and machinery. It seems also very evident that, besides their pait ownership of the res, the managing agents, who earn interest and commissions on all moneys they advance from time to time, not for repairs, but to keep the vessel in service, deriving a profit to themselves from such advances, controlling the vessel and her earnings so as to secure their repayment from her profits, and finding their business in such management of the ship, have an interest in her, not identical with that which they have as part owners, entitled to share in her profits if she makes any, in her proceeds if sold, or her insurance if lost. It is not material in this case to determine whether such interest was insurable, or whether the policies on advances did insure it. If they were wager policies or the payments under them a gift, that is no defense to the claim on the policy in suit here. They were not intended to be hull policies, nor paid because they were construed to be. As they purported to cover a different interest from the one defendant has insured, their payment cannot avail to relieve him from liability.