Flint Frozen Foods v. Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark

• Decision Date: 27 February 1951
• Docket Number: No. L--1775,L--1775
• Citation: 12 N.J.Super. 396,79 A.2d 739
• Parties: FLINT FROZEN FOODS, Inc. v. FIREMEN'S INS. CO. OF NEWARK.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court

Page 396

12 N.J.Super. 396

79 A.2d 739

FLINT FROZEN FOODS, Inc. v. FIREMEN'S INS. CO. OF NEWARK.

No. L--1775.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division.

Feb. 27, 1951.

Parsons, Labrecque, Canzona & Combs, Red Bank (Theodore D. Parsons, Red Bank, appearing), attorneys for plaintiff.

Lum, Fairlie & Foster, Newark (Raymond W. Troy, Newark, appearing), attorneys for defendant.

NAAME, J.C.C.

By consent of counsel, this case was tried before me without a jury. The facts may be briefly stated as follows: The plaintiff being indebted to Einhorn's Inc. in the amount of $13,461.99, executed and delivered to it certain notes for that amount. Upon demand, the plaintiff delivered to Einhorn's Inc. certain warehouse receipts as collateral security for the stated indebtedness. Einhorn's Inc. also required evidence of insurance covering the merchandise represented by the warehouse receipts. The plaintiff assured Einhorn's Inc. that it had a blanket policy, which among other things covered the merchandise represented by the certificates held by Einhorn's Inc. and it had reported the same to its company, requesting its insurance company to forward a certificate of insurance to Einhorn's Inc. covering the merchandise in question. Einhorn's Inc. was not satisfied and ordered fire insurance covering the merchandise in question. Among the policies ordered by Einhorn's Inc. was the policy issued by the defendant in the amount of $10,000 covering the merchandise located in one of the plaintiff's warehouses, known as Baker's Basin in Trenton, New Jersey. This policy insured Einhorn's Incorporated as owner.

Under its blanket policy, the plaintiff among other things, was obliged to file a monthly report with its insurance company of the value of the merchandise in its several warehouses. Upon the issuance of this policy by the defendant, the plaintiff in its report to its company, reduced the value of the merchandise in the Baker's Basin warehouse to the extent of $10,000.

Thereafter on December 22, 1947 about 1 A.M., a fire broke out in the Baker's Basin warehouse, destroying considerable merchandise. A Mr. Flint on behalf of the plaintiff, immediately went to the scene of the fire and from there called the defendant by telephone reporting the fire and asking the defendant to have the loss adjusted because the goods consisted of perishable food. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff had previously made arrangements to pay part of its obligation to Einhorn's Inc. and sometime later on the same day and after the fire, the plaintiff made a payment of $5,593.88 to Einhorn's Inc. In addition thereto, between the time of the issuance of the policy and the date of the fire, the plaintiff had also paid Einhorn's Inc. an aggregate of $3,000 on its obligation. Thereafter Einhorn's Inc. continued to press the plaintiff for payment of the balance due and the plaintiff thereupon arranged to pay off the balance and on January 15, 1948 paid Einhorn's Inc. $5,400 and on January 22, 1948, the remaining balance was paid. The last payment included various items and the insurance premium paid by Einhorn's Inc. on the policy issued by the defendant. The loss claim was assigned by Einhorn's Inc. to the plaintiff in the following language: 'This policy including any loss claim is assigned to Flint Frozen Foods, Inc. without recourse and subject to charges arising in connection with loss claim' and bears the date, January 15, 1948.

Thereafter considerable discussions took place between the plaintiff and the defendant and on August 14, 1948, the plaintiff filed a proof of loss in the amount of $11,219.98 with the defendant and executed it, Flint Frozen Foods, Inc., assignee of Einhorn's Inc. The defendant made an offer of settlement in the amount of $4,600 contingent on the defendant's right of subrogation to the same security held by Einhorn's Inc. and the offer was rejected. Sometime in November, 1948, the defendant denied liability on the policy and the plaintiff filed this suit.

The issue is limited to the validity of the assignment of the loss claim in question. The defendant contends that the assignment in question is invalid, since the policy by its very terms provides 'Assignment of this policy shall not be valid except with the written consent of this company.' The defendant also contends it was entitled to the right of subrogation since its policy covered Einhorn's Inc. as a mortgagee and that upon payment of the loss claim, Einhorn's Inc. was obliged to transfer to it the security held by it and that it was deprived of this right of subrogation when the plaintiff paid off its obligation to Einhorn's Inc. Einhorn's Inc. returned the security, namely the warehouse receipts to the plaintiff.

The policy in question on its face, insures Einhorn's Inc. There is nothing in the policy that indicates that Einhorn's Inc. was insured other than as owner of the merchandise in question. In addition, the policy provided that the mercantile risk protected was...