First Baptist Church of Jackson v. Citizens' Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

Decision Date03 January 1899
Citation77 N.W. 702,119 Mich. 203
PartiesFIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF JACKSON v. CITIZENS' MUT. FIRE INS. CO.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

Error to circuit court, Jackson county; Guy M. Chester, Judge.

Action by the First Baptist Church of Jackson against the Citizens' Mutual Fire Insurance Company on a policy. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Affirmed.

George I. Wilson and Blair, Smith & Townsend, for appellant.

Thomas E. Barkworth, for appellee.

MOORE J.

A church building belonging to plaintiff was insured in the defendant company. It was burned the 31st of May, 1897. Proof of loss was made to Mr. Todd, the adjuster of the company and he issued a certificate of adjustment dated June 3, 1897 in which he stated he found the loss to be $2,149, and that he had adjusted plaintiff's claim against defendant at the sum of $1,000. In the application appears the question "What other insurance on the same?" The question was not answered. The policy is a standard policy, and contains this clause: "This policy is issued on written application by the assured, which is hereby made a part of this policy, other concurrent insurance permitted." The proofs of loss showed there was a policy of $500 insurance upon the property in another company. The proofs of loss were filed with the president, chairman of the executive board, and other officers of the company, about July 4, 1897. Upon that day the officers of the church met the officers of the company, and discussed the adjustment of the loss. No question was then raised as to the sufficiency of the proof, but it was claimed the insurance in another company without the consent of defendant company forfeited the policy. A special meeting of the board of directors was called in August with a view of coming to a final adjustment. Nothing was accomplished, and the matter was referred to the executive board for final action. The premium was not returned. On August 31st inquiry was made of the secretary of the company by the attorney for plaintiff whether he should go ahead and commence suit, or wait for the executive committee. The secretary told him he did not think the executive committee would do anything about it. Nothing was done by the executive committee, and this suit was commenced upon the policy to recover the loss, September 15, 1897. The defendant pleaded the general issue without attaching thereto any notice whatever. The case was tried in December, 1897 and by direction of the court a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. It is claimed by defendant that, as it is a mutual company, the provisions of the charter and of the statute governing mutual insurance companies attach to the insurance policy issued by it, and that by the terms of the charter and statute, the insurance does not come due until 60 days after proof of loss, and suit cannot be brought until 60 days after the loss comes due. How. Ann. St. � 4258. On the other hand, it is claimed that, as the policy was a standard policy, plaintiff was not a member of the company, or bound by its charter, or by the statute in question, and that suit might be brought, by the terms of the policy, any time when 60 days had elapsed after proof of loss. It is also claimed the defense could not be made under the pleadings.

The provisions of the policy in relation to the payments of the loss are as follows: "The sum for which this company is liable pursuant to this policy shall be payable sixty days after due notice, ascertainment, estimate and satisfactory proof of the loss have been received by this company in accordance with the terms of this policy." The policy provides that, in case there is any disagreement about the amount of the loss, the amount may be determined by appraisers, and then reads: "The loss shall not become payable until sixty days after the notice, ascertainment, estimate, and satisfactory proof of the loss herein required have been received by this company, including an award by the appraisers, when appraisal has been required." The policy also contains this condition: "If this policy be made by a mutual or other company having special regulations lawfully applicable to its organization, membership, policies, or contracts of insurance, such regulations shall apply to and form a part of this policy, as the same may be written or...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT