Aetna Ins. Co. v. Willys-Overland, Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 November 1922 |
| Docket Number | 10886. |
| Citation | 288 F. 912 |
| Parties | AETNA INS. CO. v. WILLYS-OVERLAND, Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Dustin McKeehan, Merrick, Arter & Stewart, of Cleveland, Ohio, Henry N. Longley, and Bigham, Englar & Jones, all of New York City for plaintiff.
John A. Cline, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Tolles, Hogsett, Ginn & Morley, of Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.
WESTENHAVER District Judge (after stating the facts as above).
This cause has been heard and submitted on a general demurrer to each of the two causes of action stated in the amended petition. After submission, the parties, at the suggestion of the court, filed a stipulation that the open policy of marine insurance and the certificates of reinsurance issued by the defendant might for the purposes of this demurrer be considered as a part of the amended petition as fully as if all the pertinent provisions thereof had been properly pleaded in the amended petition. True copies of the documents referred to are attached to the stipulation.
Later I communicated to counsel, in chambers, quite fully my views respecting the ultimate question of law and fact arising upon the demurrer, and accorded them an opportunity to restudy these questions and to submit further briefs. This has been done. These conferences dispense with the necessity of any statement of the facts or any extended statement of the reasons upon which my conclusion is based. It will be sufficient to state my conclusion briefly, and so much only of my reasoning as will inform counsel of the grounds upon which I have based my conclusions. One question only of law has been argued, and it resolves itself finally into a question of fact. That question is the right of a holder of one of the certificates of insurance. The holder's rights depend upon the extent to which the terms and conditions of the original insurance policy are to be regarded as a part of or control and limit the terms and conditions of the insurance certificate.
These insurance certificates are issued by the defendant and countersigned by plaintiff's representative, under authority of the provisions contained in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the original policy. When properly issued pursuant to that authority, they become, in my opinion, an original and independent contract between the plaintiff and a holder thereof. Neither the form nor the specific terms of the certificates is set forth in the insurance policy. The form of the certificates, it may be assumed, was prepared by the insurance company and, according to the usual rule, is to be construed most strongly against it. The certificate provides methods of adjustment, notice and proof of loss, place and manner of payment, different from and independent of the terms of the original policy pertaining to the same subject-matter. It is not necessary to hold that none of the terms and conditions of the original policy is incorporated in the certificate and may not be looked to in order to ascertain the entire contract between the insurance company and a certificate holder. It may be conceded that the certificate and the insurance policy are to be taken together in order to ascertain the entire contract between insurance company and the certificate holder. It is none the less true, however, that a certificate issued and countersigned pursuant to the authority conferred by said paragraphs 19 and 20 becomes a new and independent contract between the insurance company and the certificate holder, and a new contract is thereby engendered which controls the rights as between them. The certificate holder does not become an assignee of the original policy of insurance nor a mere appointee under that policy to collect the insurance in case of loss. He is not a person claiming title through the defendant as the original insured under the original policy. His contract is none the less an independent one with the insurance company, although it may be necessary to examine both the certificate and the original policy in order to ascertain the terms of that independent contract.
In this case, plaintiff contends that a certificate holder can recover against the insurance company after loss notwithstanding the original insured, the Willys-Overland, Inc., had been guilty of a breach of duty imposed on it by the terms of the original policy, and that,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Intermetals Corp. v. Hanover Intern.
...the insurance policy in order to understand the entire contract between the insurer and the certificate holder. Aetna Ins. Co. v. Willys-Overland, 288 F. 912, 914 (N.D.Ohio 1922); see also Brandyce v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co., 252 N.Y. 69, 168 N.E. 832, 833 (1929) (holding that certifi......
- Old Colony Trust Co. v. Malley
-
Brandyce v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co.
...State Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Shaw, 54 Md. 546. See, also, De Grove v. Metropolitan Ins. Co., supra. In AEtna Ins. Co. v. Willys-Overland (D. C.) 288 F. 912, it was held that an action could be maintained on the certificate there involved, issued under an open marine insurance policy......
-
F.S. Royster Guano Co. v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co.
...tugs, etc., and not the barges, when the barges carried the property insured. We have not overlooked the case of AEtna Ins. Co. v. Willys-Overland (D. C.) 288 F. 912. That case likewise dealt with certificates of insurance issued under an open policy and the loss of a vessel carrying goods ......