Court Opinion

ID: 6415560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 11:55:54.286407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:32.375834
License: Public Domain

Gray, J.
No rule of the law of insurance is better settled by authority than that by which, when the insured has some interest at risk, and there is no fraud, a valuation of the subject insured in the policy is held conclusive upon the parties, at law and in equity. Hodgson v. Marine Insurance Co. 5 Cranch, 100; S. C. 6 Cranch, 206, and 7 Cranch, 332. Alsop v. Commercial Insurance Co. 1 Sumner, 451. Irving v. Manning, 6 C. B. 391; S. C. 1 H. L. Cas. 287. Barker v. Janson, Law Rep. 3 C. P. 303. 3 Kent Com. (6th ed.) 273. Coolidge v. Gloucester Insurance Co. 15 Mass. 341. Robinson v. Manufacturers’ Insurance Co. 1 *477Met. 147. Fuller v. Boston Insurance Co. 4 Met. 206. And none is better founded in reason. The very object of putting the contract into the form of a valued, instead of an open policy, is to prevent disputes as to the amount to be recovered by the assured in case of a total loss by the perils insured against and the premium paid to the insurers is regulated accordingly.
In this case, it is admitted that the assured had a large interest at risk, and the question of fraud in the overvaluation has been submitted to a jury, and answered in his favor. Judgment must therefore be entered on the verdict in the action at law, and the bill in equity to cancel the policy
Dismissed, with costs.