Decker v. Somerset Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 26 May 1877
• Parties: WILLIAM DECKER v. SOMERSET MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY. 1876.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

66 Me. 406

WILLIAM DECKER v. SOMERSET MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.

1876.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

May 26, 1877

ON MOTION AND EXCEPTIONS.

CASE upon an insurance policy against fire.

The exceptions state that it became material for the plaintiff to show that he had made proof of loss; and for that purpose he offered a paper purporting to be signed by John Diggles, and having upon its face a slip of paper attached by mucilage upon which was written C. A. Atkinson; that the defendant objected to the paper as incompetent, also that in case the paper was read, the plaintiff should prove its execution; but the court allowed the paper to be read without such proof that the plaintiff offered oral evidence to prove the interest of a certain mortgagee, and that the premium for insurance was paid by him; and that the court admitted the evidence against the defendants' objection.

The court instructed the jury among other things, as follows:

" Some question has been raised in regard to the amount of proof necessary to establish this defense.

I instruct you that in order to establish the defense, you must find that it has been reasonably established, that is, that it has been established to your reasonable satisfaction; but when that amount of proof is furnished you, then you would be authorized to find that the defense is made out. You are to require more evidence in cases of this kind than you would to establish payment of a note, or establish an account in set-off filed against an action brought on a contract. Considering the gravity of the charge, you as reasonable and reasoning men would ordinarily, if the law did not lay down any rule at all, require stronger proof of its truthfulness than you would in ordinary cases between party and party arising out of matters of contract."

The verdict was for the plaintiff and the defendants alleged exceptions.

H Knowlton, for the defendants, contended that the action being civil in its form and nature should be determined by the preponderance of evidence; that no more proof was required in this than in any other civil suit; that it was error to instruct the jury that they were to require more evidence in cases of this kind, citing Knowles v. Scribner, 57 Me. 495; that the evidence to establish the genuineness of the paper should be the best attainable and that the paper was inadmissible without proof of its execution.

S D. Lindsey, for the plaintiff, contended that the instruction in regard to the amount of proof was correct and in accordance with the doctrine of Knowles and Scribner cited by the defendants' counsel. Schmidt v. New York F. Insurance Co., 1 Gray 529. Gordon v. Parmelee, 15 Gray 413. That the notice of loss was seasonably furnished the defendants, and if defective, they should have notified the plaintiff and required more formal proof or defects would be regarded as waived. Bartlett v. Union M. F. Ins. Co., 46 Me. 500. Walker v. Metropolitan Ins. Co., 56 Me. 371. Patterson v. Triumph Ins. Co., 64 Me. 500. And that the plaintiff was not required to furnish proof of signature to notice of loss, referred to in the writ and falling within the 10th rule of this court.

WALTON J.

This case is before the law court on motion and exceptions. It is an action on an insurance policy against fire. One ground of defense is that the fire was willfully set by the plaintiff himself, or by his procurement.

I. The presiding judge instructed the jury that in order to establish this defense, they must find that it had been reasonably established; that is, that it had been established to their reasonable satisfaction; that they were to require more evidence than they would to establish payment of a note or prove an account in set-off; that they would consider...