Court Opinion

ID: 6897405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-23 21:51:17.347511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:06:02.932940
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Mr. Justice Bean
delivered the opinion of the court.
2. During the progress of the trial, defendant offered to prove that the amount of the incumbrances on the property at the time the insurance was effected had been reduced by payments, and did not exceed $16,-000 at the time plaintiff’s mortgages were given, and therefore the statement in the opinion heretofore filed that they were given for the purpose of raising money with which to pay prior incumbrances was not strictly accurate. But, in our opinion, the evidence offered was immaterial. The question was not so much whether the amount secured by plaintiff’s mortgages exceeded that actually due on the prior liens at the time of their execution as it was whether the risk had been thereby increased. The rule that an incumbrance on insured property, in violation of the terms of the policy, works a forfeiture, proceeds upon the theory that it increases the hazard, by reducing the *328interest of the assured in the property covered by the policy, and consequently his interest in its preservation. But the reason of this rule ceases where the policy is issued with knowledge of existing incumbrances. The insurance in that case in effect contracts to accept the risk according to the assured’s present interest in the property, and a subsequent change in the form or amount of the incumbrances ought not to work a forfeiture of the policy so long as the amount óf such incumbrnnces is not increased. The interest of the assured remains unchanged, and the moral hazard the same. It is true, there is some conflict in the authorities upon this question; but we take this to be the better rule, and supported by the weight of authority. See cases cited in the original opinion.
Rehearing Denied.