Northern Assurance Company of London v. Grand View Building Association
Decision Date | 06 January 1902 |
Docket Number | No. 60,60 |
Citation | 46 L.Ed. 213,22 S.Ct. 133,183 U.S. 308 |
Parties | NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY OF LONDON, Petitioner , v. GRAND VIEW BUILDING ASSOCIATION |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
In September, 1898, the Grand View Building Association, a corporation organized under the laws of Nebraska, in the district court of Lancaster county of that state, brought an action against the Northern Assurance Company of London, incorporated under the laws of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, seeking to recover the sum of $2,500 as due under the terms of a policy of insurance that had been issued by the assurance company to the plaintiff company on December 31, 1896, on certain property situated in said Lancaster county, and which, on June 1, 1898, had been destroyed by fire.
Thereupon the defendant company filed in the said county court a petition and bond, in due form, and prayed for an order removing the cause to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Nebraska; and on September 29, 1898, the county court approved the bond, and entered an order granting the prayer of the petition for removal.
Subsequently the case was put at issue on the petition, answer, and reply in the circuit court of the United States, and was so proceeded in that, on October 20, 1898, a special verdict was found by the jury empaneled in the case, and on January 14, 1899, a final judgment was entered for the plaintiff and against the defendant company in the sum of $2,500, with interest and costs. The cause was then taken to the United States circuit court of appeals for the eighth circuit, and that court, on March 26, 1900, affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. 41 C. C. A. 207, 101 Fed. 77. Thereafter, on petition of the defendant company, a writ of certiorari was allowed, in response to which the record and proceedings in the cause were brought to this court.
Messrs. Ralph W. Breckenridge and Charles J. Greene for petitioner.
Messrs. Halleck F. Rose and Joseph R. Webster for respondent.
In order that the questions discussed in this case and the grounds of our judgment therein may sufficiently appear, it seems proper to set out, with substantial fulness, the pleadings of the parties and the special verdict of the jury.
The plaintiff's petition, having alleged the making of the policy of insurance and the destruction of the property insured, then proceeded to allege in its fourth paragraph, apparently by way of meeting an expected defense, that
Having stated that plaintiff had rendered and delivered a statement of loss, in compliance with the terms of the policy, the petition further alleged that 'on the 26th day of July, 1898, the plaintiff demanded of defendant the payment of said insurance; and defendant, disregarding its undertaking in that behalf, denies liability on the sole ground that said policy has been void from the date of its issue by reason of the said provision in regard to other insurance, the same provision which as aforesaid it had waived at the time of issuing its said policy.'
The answer of defendant admitted the making of the policy, the destruction of the insured property by fire, and proof of loss, but denied specifically the allegations of the fourth paragraph of said petition, as follows:
'Further answering, this defendant alleges that the policy of insurance which it issued to the plaintiff on December 31, 1896, contained the following provision:
"This entire policy, unless otherwise provided by agreement indorsed hereon or added hereto, shall be void if the insured now has or shall hereafter make or procure any other contract of insurance, whether valid or not, on property covered in whole or in part by this policy.' The defendant further says that its policy in question was issued to the plaintiff with the express statement therein made that it was issued in consideration of the 'stipulations' therein named and a certain amount of premium paid therefor. And said policy, besides the provisions above quoted, contains the following stipulation and condition: 'This policy is made and accepted subject to the foregoing stipulations and conditions, together with such other provisions, agreements, or conditions as may be indorsed hereon or added hereto, and no officer, agent, or other representative of this company shall have power to waive any provision or condition of this policy except such as by the terms of this policy may be the subject of agreement indorsed herein or added thereto, and as to such provisions and conditions no officer, agent, or representative shall have such power or be deemed or held to have waived such provisions or conditions unless such waiver, if any, shall be written upon or attached hereto, nor shall any privilege or permission affecting the insurance under this policy exist or be claimed by the insured unless so written or attached.' The defendant says that notwithstanding the stipulations, provisions, and agreements above set forth and without the consent of the defendant indorsed upon said policy in writing, and without the knowledge of the defendant, the plaintiff obtained a policy of insurance, upon the property covered by the policy issued by this defendant, in the sum of $1,500 in the Firemen's Fund Insurance Company.
The plaintiff company replied to the answer, denying that it procured a policy of insurance in the Firemen's Fund Insurance Company upon the property insured by defendant in violation of the terms of the policy issued by defendant and without the knowledge of defendant, and made the following allegations:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Loftis v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. of California
... ... PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA No. 2126 Supreme Court of Utah ... of Law, 923; ... Parsons v. Grand Lodge, etc. [Ia.], 78 N.W. 676; ... Knapp v ... ( Northern Assurance ... Co. v. Grand View Building Ass'n., ... 30; Smoot v ... Banker's Life Association [Mo.], 120 S.W. 719; ... Schmertz v. U. S ... ...
-
Cohen v. Home Ins., Co.
... ... THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY a corporation of the State of New York, defendant ... of the importance of this case, and in view ... of an equal division of opinion among the ... Northern Assurance Co. Case, 183 U.S. 308, 22 S.Ct. 133, ... Northern Assur. Co. v. Grand View Bldg. Assoc., 183 ... U.S. 308, 22 S.Ct ... ...
-
Field v. Missouri Life Ins. Co.
... ... Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals ... maintained an office in the Ness building at Salt Lake City, ... Utah. The following sign ... 338, 9 N.W. 386; ... Assurance Co. v. State , 113 Ind. 331, 15 ... N.E. 518; ... 664, 15 Wall. 664, 21 L.Ed. 246; Northern ... Assurance Co. v. Grand View Bldg. Ass'n , ... ...
-
Carroll v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
... ... HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant Supreme Court of Idaho ... ( Northern Assur ... Co. v. Grandview Building Assn., 183 ... errors are assigned, but, as we view the matter, only a few ... of them need to be ... [154 P. 987] ... Co. v. Grand View Building Assn., 183 U.S. 308, 22 ... S.Ct ... ...
-
CHAPTER 2
...applies to policies of insurance as well as other contracts. The evidence was not admissible. N. Assur. Co. v. Grand View Bldg. Ass’n, 183 U.S. 308 (1902); Lumber Underwriters of New York v. Rife, 237 U.S. 605 (1915). We come now to the question of damages. The policy was an open one. It is......
-
RACE IN CONTRACT LAW.
...77-78. (213) WILLIAM R. VANCE, HANDBOOK ON THE LAW OF INSURANCE 516 (3d ed. 1951). (214) See N. Assurance Co. v. Grand View Bldg. Ass'n, 183 U.S. 308, 364 (1902) (emphasizing the benefit to the parties and the broader community in "preserving written contracts from change or alteration by v......
-
THE LAW WANTS TO BE FORMAL.
...368, 379 (1893) (referencing "general rules of the common law"). (96) See, e.g., N. Assurance Co. of London v. Grand View Bldg. Ass'n, 183 U.S. 308, 317-24 (1902) (reviewing English and Canadian holdings on contract interpretation in the context of interpreting an insurance policy under Ame......
-
Express Warranty as Contractual - the Need for a Clear Approach - Sidney Kwestel
...in the insurance contract was not true has had a confusing history. Id. at 845-46; see also N. Assurance Co. v. Grand View Bldg. Ass'n, 183 U.S. 308, 329-35 (1902). 49. Bennett is problematic for another reason. A party's precontract knowledge stemming from its own investigation—as was the ......