Fidelity Deposit Co of Maryland v. Pink

• Decision Date: 06 December 1937
• Docket Number: No. 38,38
• Citation: 58 S.Ct. 162,82 L.Ed. 213,302 U.S. 224
• Parties: FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND v. PINK, Superintendent of Insurance of State of New York. *
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

302 U.S. 224

58 S.Ct. 162

82 L.Ed. 213

FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND

v PINK, Superintendent of Insurance of State of New York.^*

No. 38.

Argued Nov. 17, 18, 1937.

Decided Dec. 6, 1937.

Messrs. Harold L. Smith and Ralph S. Harris, both of New York City, for petitioner.

Messrs. Irvin Waldman and Alfred C. Bennett, both of New York City, for respondent.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

In 1930 Southern Surety Company, a New York corporation, issued to John De Martini Company, Inc., a fidelity insurance bond and on the same day reinsured half of the risk with petitioner, Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland. The De Martini Company claimed a loss. While this was in course of adjustment (March, 1932), a New York court adjudged the Southern Company insolvent and dissolved it. Respondent Pink, Superintendent of Insurance for New York, took possession of its property and entered upon liquidation of the business.

He allowed, but did not discharge, the De Martini Company's claim. Thereupon he demanded that petitioner pay half of it. This having been refused, he instituted these proceedings in the United States District Court to recover upon the reinsurance contract. Judgment went in his favor; the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed; the matter is here upon certiorari. The facts are not in dispute.

The contract between the two insurance companies incorporated the 'standard form of reinsurance agreement' adopted by the Surety Association of America in 1930. This form provides:

'In consideration of the premium payable under section 1 hereof ____ hereinafter called the Reinsurer, does hereby reinsure Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, hereinafter called the Reinsured, under bond numbered ____, together with all riders attached thereto, hereinafter called the Bond, issued by the Reinsured in the penalty of ____ Dollars, in favor of ____ (obligee), and in behalf of ____ hereinafter called the Principal, against loss thereunder and against costs and expenses, as hereinafter defined, and interest. A copy of the bond is or may be attached hereto, and is hereby made a part of this agreement.

'The foregoing agreement is subject to the following conditions and provisions: (These appear in fifteen succeeding sections.)'

Section 4, copied in the margin,¹ contains the following, among other things:

'The Reinsurer's proportionate share of a loss under the bond, of costs and expenses as hereinafter defined, and of interest, shall be paid to the Reinsured upon proof of the payment of such items by the Reinsured, and upon delivery to the Reinsurer of copies of all essential documents concerned with such loss and costs and the payment thereof. The Reinsured may, however, give the Reinsurer written notice of its intention to pay the loss on a certain date, and may require the Reinsurer to have its share of such loss in the hands of the Reinsured by such date; provided, however, that the Reinsurer in any event shall have a period of forty-eight hours, after the receipt of such written notice from the Reinsured, to mail or otherwise despatch its payment; and provided further that in any such case the Reinsurer, if it desires to do so, may pay its share of the loss by means of a check drawn in favor of the obligee of the bond.'

Petitioner's counsel maintain that the standard form provides for insurance only 'against loss'; that the reinsurer thereunder becomes liable only upon 'proof of the payment of such items by the Reinsured, and upon delivery to the Reinsurer of copies of all essential documents concerned with such loss and costs and the payment thereof'; that payment by the reinsured is a condition precedent to the reinsurer's liability. Sundry provisions in the form, indicated below, they say lend support to this view.¹ Respondent maintains that proof of payment is not a prerequisite to recover.

Both courts below thought that Allemannia Fire Insurance Company v. Firemen's Insurance Company (1908), 209 U.S. 326, 28 S.Ct. 544, 52 L.Ed. 815, 14 Ann.Cas. 948 required approval of respondent's contention. This was error. The defense was well taken and should have been sustained.

We do not question the general rules concerning liability of reinsurers announced in the Allemannia Case; but the liability under any written contract must be determined upon consideration of the words employed, read in the light of attending circumstances.

Here the two insurance companies stood upon an equal footing; both were experts in the field. The language used differs materially from that found in the policy of the Allemannia Company. There is no ambiguity...