Castner v. Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 13 April 1881 |
| Citation | 46 Mich. 15,8 N.W. 554 |
| Parties | CASTNER and another v. FARMERS' MUTUAL INS. CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Where proofs of loss upon an insurance policy showed the position of a dry-house near a dwelling, which the company treated in its notice of refusal as part of the property insured, held they could not afterwards urge its proximity to the dwelling as a defence as an increase of the risk, which was unduly concealed. Minute accuracy in stating title to property, and nature of the interest of the insured, is not essential in an application for insurance, unless distinctly required. Parties having separate interests in property may insure them jointly.
Error to Van Buren.
Lester A. Tabor, for plaintiff in error.
Plaintiffs sued upon a policy of insurance issued to them jointly on a dwelling and personal property contained in it, both of which were destroyed by fire. The house was occupied by both--being mother and son--but each occupied separate portions, and the son owned the fee subject to his mother's life interest. The personal property was also owned in severalty, the son's property being the largest part. The fire caught from a dry-house near the dwelling, as was shown by plaintiffs. The defence urged on the trial was--First, that the property was not joint; second, that the policy was destroyed or suspended by default on assessments; and, third that the dry-house increased the risk, and was not described in the application.
The circuit court ruled in favor of defendant on the question of joint interest, and did not decide the other points; but defendant claims that if any of these were well taken, the judgment cannot be reversed. It appears from the record that after proof of loss, which in regard to the personal property at least showed a separate title in Mrs. Castner to a part of it, the company refused to pay on two grounds: First, failure to pay assessments; and, second, the use of a stove in a room without a chimney. The objection, therefore, that there had been an undue concealment of the proximity of the dry-house cannot be relied on, for the proof of loss showed its position, and the company by the notice seems to have treated it as part of the property insured, but as not properly heated. There may be some question how far they were informed concerning the title. We do not think the objection based on the condition of the title is valid. It is quite common to...
To continue reading
Request your trial