Biddefoed Sav. Bank v. Dwelltng-House Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 June 1889 |
| Citation | 18 A. 298,81 Me. 566 |
| Parties | BIDDEFOED SAV. BANK v. DWELLTNG-HOUSE INS. CO. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Report from supreme judicial court, York county.
Report on facts agreed, a summary of which is as follows: October 30, 1882, W. F. Wildes conveyed in mortgage a lot of land and the buildings thereon, situate in Biddeford, upon which buildings the policy in suit was issued, to E. Stone, to secure $225, and June 1, 1883, quitclaimed them to Louisa M. Dearborn, to whom the defendant, through its agents, Smith and Tibbetts, issued its policy for $1,250, September 19, 1883, containing the following clause: "Payable, in case of loss, to Biddeford Savings Bank, as its interest may be." Stone, September 9, 1883, assigned his mortgage to the Biddeford Savings Hank, the plaintiff; and said Dearborn, November 11, 1884, reconveyed the premises by quitclaim to said Wildes, assigning at the same time her policy with the consent of the insurance company's agents. On this day Dearborn conveyed the premises by warranty deed to the bank, which at the same time gave him a written agreement, not under seal, to reconvey said premises to him on payment of his indebtedness to it. August 18, 1886, said Wildes executed and delivered a quitclaim deed of the premises to his wife, Ruth B. Wildes, after which the policy was assigned, with the consent of the company's agents, to the bank, the agents having knowledge of the deed to the bank. The property insured was destroyed by fire August 4, 1887, and notice thereof was immediately received by the defendant. A proof of loss, made by Ruth B. Wildes, was furnished the defendant August 9, 1887, to which no objection, as to matter of form and substance, was made. This is the only proof of loss furnished, and defendant has not requested additional proofs. The adjuster of the company found the loss or damage to the property to be $1,125. After the lapse of 60 days from the time when the proofs of loss were furnished, a demand was made on the defendant for payment of loss, which was refused. The amount due to the plaintiff on its mortgage at the time of the loss was $338.41, and the defendant, at the May term, 1883, filed an offer to be defaulted for that sum and interest from the date of loss and costs of suit.
R. P. Tapley and E. Stone, for plaintiff. W. F. Lunt and I. W. Dyer, for defendant.
This is an action upon a policy of insurance. It is presented upon an agreed statement of facts, from which it appears that the policy in question was issued to Louisa M. Dearborn, September 19, 1883, containing a provision by which it was payable to the plaintiff "in case of loss, as its interests may be." At that time the assured was mortgagor of the premises insured, and the plaintiff mortgagee. On November 11, 1884, the assured conveyed her interest in the premises insured, and with the consent of the defendant company assigned the policy to William F. Wildes, and on the same day he, in consideration of the $200, conveyed by warranty deed the premises to the plaintiff, who gave back a written agreement, not under seal, for a reconveyance, which is made a part of the case. On May 6, 1887, Wildes, with the written consent of the company, assigned the policy to the plaintiff, though previous to this he had released his interest in the premises to his wife, Ruth B. Wildes.
The defendant raises a preliminary objection to its liability for want of notice and proof of the loss, which happened August 4, 1887. It may be conceded that, in the absence of due notice and proof of loss by the assured, or by some one acting for and in its behalf and by its authority, no duty or liability would rest upon the defendant. But this requirement is for the sole benefit of the insurer; and it is now well settled that, whether imposed by contract or statute, it may be waived in part or in whole by the company for whose benefit it is imposed. In this case, the agreed statement finds that notice was received by the defendant immediately after the loss, and that in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Union Trust Co. of Ellsworth v. Philadelphia Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
...mortgagee was without protection. Brunswick Sav. Inst. v. Commercial Ins. Co., 68 Me. 313, 28 Am. Rep. 56; Biddeford Sav. Bank v. Dwelling-House Insurance Co., 81 Me. 570, 18 A. 298. The authorities are now almost unanimously in accord that, by the insertion of the provision now contained i......
-
Collinsville Sav. Soc'y v. Boston Ins. Co.
...Franklin Savings Inst v. Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 119 Mass. 240; Baldwin v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 60 N. H. 164; Biddeford Savings Bank v. Home Ins. Co., 81 Me. 566, 18 Atl. 298; Magoun v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 80 Minn. 486, 91 N. W. 5, 91 Am. St. Rep. 370; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Olco......
-
Auburn Water Dist. v. Insurance Co. of North America
...may knowingly and voluntarily relinquish include the enforcement of preconditions of policies. See Biddeford Savings Bank v. Dwelling-House Ins. Co., 81 Me. 566, 18 A. 298 (1889). However, we find nothing in the record which would support a finding of an inferred waiver of the Insurance Com......
-
Richmond v. Phoenix Assur. Co.
...& Co.'s claim upon that interest also vanished. They were subject to all the conditions of the policies. Biddeford Sav. Bank v. Dwelling House Ins. Co., 81 Me. 566, 18 Atl. 298. Judgment for defendant in each ...