Day v. Dwelling-House Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 18 January 1889 |
| Parties | DAY v. DWELLING-HOUSE INS. CO. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Lincoln county.
L. M. Staples, for plaintiff. W. H. Hilton, for defendant.
This is an action on a fire insurance policy. A trial has been had, and a verdict returned for the plaintiff. The case is before the law court on motion and exceptions by the defendant. We think the motion and exceptions must be overruled.
1. The evidence of fraud, or of a fraudulent burning of the buildings insured, is very weak,—too weak to predicate a verdict upon.
2. The insurance company excepts to the admission in evidence of a letter from an agent of the company to the plaintiff's attorney. It appears that the fire occurred October 6, 1886; that notice of the fire was given to the defend ant's agent the next day, but that what is commonly called the "proof of loss" was not furnished till the next April. The defendant's attorney insisted at the trial that this was not in season; and to excuse the delay, and show that it was at the request of the defendant's agent, the letter in question was offered and admitted. It is claimed that the letter was inadmissible because by the terms of the policy it is declared that no act of any agent of the company other than its secretary or president shall be construed or held to be a waiver of a full and strict compliance with all the provisions of the policy. The policy does contain such a provision. But we have no hesitation in declaring the provision illegal and void. Previous to the enactment of our present insurance law, policies had become so loaded down with provisions, limitations, and conditions that in many cases they secured to the insured nothing better than an unsuccessful lawsuit in addition to the loss of his property. And one of the purposes of our present statute was to put an end to this evil. The statute declares that the agents of all insurance companies, foreign or domestic, shall be regarded as in the place of the company, in all respects, regarding any insurance effected by them; and that all provisions contained in any policy in conflict with any of the provisions of said chapter shall be null and void. Rev. St. c. 49, §§ 21, 90. We think these provisions should not be limited in their application to the agents through whom insurance is effected, or to those whose names are borne upon policies. We think they are intended to apply to all the agents of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Fred Miller Brewing Co. v. Capital Ins. Co.
-
Connecticut Fire Insurance Co., of Hartford v. O'Fallon
... ... Avery, 5 H. L. Cas ... [Eng.] 811; Viney v. Bignold, 20 Q. B. Div ... [Eng.] 172; Wolff v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins ... Co. 21 Vroom [N.J.] 453; Hall v. Norwalk Fire Ins ... Co. 57 Conn. 105-114; Adams v. South British Ins ... Co. 70 Cal. 198; Carroll v ... 273; Nute v. Hamilton ... Mutual Ins. Co. 6 Gray [Mass.] 174; Vore v. Hawkeye ... Ins. Co. 41 N.W. 309 [Iowa]; Day v. Dwelling-House ... Ins. Co. 16 A. 894 [Me.]; Reiner v. Dwelling-House ... Ins. Co. 42 N.W. 208 [Wis.]; Sly v. Ottawa ... Agricultural Ins. Co. 29 U. C. C. P. 28; ... ...
- Dibbrell v. Georgia Home Ins. Co.
-
Rittler v. Smith
...provided that he should receive an amount not exceeding $2,000, but according to the numbers liable to assessment on this certificate, 16 A. 894 and from that he received, according to its terms, only $250. Another of the associations was in financial difficulties, and he compromised his cl......