Anderson v. Manchester Fire Assur. Co.

Decision Date15 May 1895
PartiesANDERSON v. MANCHESTER FIRE ASSUR. CO.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

59 Minn. 182
63 N.W. 241

ANDERSON
v.
MANCHESTER FIRE ASSUR. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 15, 1895.


[63 N.W. 241]


(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Chapter 217, Gen. Laws 1889 (Gen. St. 1894, §§ 3200-3202), which provided for the preparation by the insurance commissioner, and the adoption, of the “Minnesota standard policy,” is unconstitutional and void, for the reason that it attempted to delegate legislative power to the insurance commissioner.

2. Where a policy of insurance provided, “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,” held, by delivering the policy knowing the existence of other insurance on the premises, the insurer waived the condition, though no such waiver was indorsed on the policy. 60 N. W. 1095, reversed.


On rehearing. Affirmed.

For former report, see 60 N. W. 1095.

S. T. & Wm. Harrison (Kitchel, Cohen & Shaw, of counsel), for appellant.

John Jenswold, Jr., and Bunn & Hadley, for respondent.


CANTY, J.

This case was argued and decided in favor of appellant at the last term of this court. See 60 N. W. 1095. It having been then suggested that chapter 217, Gen. Laws 1889 (Gen. St. 1894, §§ 3200-3202), which provided for the preparation and adoption of the “Minnesota standard policy,” was unconstitutional, for the reason that it attempted to delegate legislative powers to the insurance commissioner, a motion for a reargument was made, on the ground of such unconstitutionality, the motion was granted, and the case has since been reargued. Since the granting of the motion for reargument, the supreme court of Pennsylvania has declared a somewhat similar statute unconstitutional, as being at attempted delegation of legislative power. See O'Neil v. Insurance Co. (Pa. Sup.) 30 Atl. 943. It is now conceded by appellant that, if the Minnesota statute was the same as that of Pennsylvania, it would be unconstitutional. But, while the statute of Pennsylvania attempted to give the insurance commissioner power to adopt, as the standard policy, any form of insurance contract he saw fit, it is claimed that the Minnesota statute required the insurance commissioner to adopt the New York standard policy, and gave him no discretion, as to the substance of the contract to be so adopted, and that, therefore, there was no such attempt to delegate legislative power to him. So far as it is necessary here to consider said chapter 217, it reads as follows:

“Section 1. The insurance commissioner shall prepare and file in his office on or before the first (1st) day of August, A. D. eighteen hundred and eighty-nine (1889), a printed form in blank of a contract or policy of fire insurance, together with such provisions, agreements or conditions as may be endorsed thereon, or added thereto, and form...

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