Flynn v. Orient Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 December 1914
• Citation: 92 A. 737,77 N.H. 431
• Parties: FLYNN v. ORIENT INS. CO.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

92 A. 737

77 N.H. 431

FLYNN

v. ORIENT INS. CO.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Coos.

Dec. 1, 1914.

Transferred from Superior Court, Coos County; Sawyer, Judge.

Assumpsit by Mary Flynn against the Orient Insurance Company on a fire policy. Trial by court, facts found, and case transferred from the April, 1914, term of the superior court. Judgment for plaintiff.

July 10, 1910, Woodward & Gerrish, the defendants' agents, issued a policy insuring the plaintiff's household furniture against damage by fire for a term of three years. The policy stipulated that no action should be maintained thereon unless brought within one year after a loss, and provided that in the event of damage by fire the insured should forthwith furnish to the insurers a sworn statement of loss. The insured property was destroyed by fire on September 23, 1911. On the following day the plaintiff, who was about to remove to Ontario, gave notice of her loss to Woodward & Gerrish, who immediately notified the defendants and promised to send the plaintiff whatever papers it was necessary for her to execute in order to protect her interests. September 30th, she furnished to the defendants a schedule of the damaged property. Hearing nothing from Woodward & Gerrish, the plaintiff wrote to them on October 22d regarding an adjustment of her loss, and on October 24th they informed her that her letter had been forwarded to the defendants. November 3d, they wrote that the company expected a strict compliance with the terms of the policy and that nothing would be done until her claim was presented in the regular way. December 18th, she wrote to Sullivan, the defendants' special agent, asking if it was possible to adjust her loss without returning to Berlin, and to this Sullivan replied, on January 6, 1912, that she had undoubtedly been advised by the local agents in respect to the requirements of the policy and that the company expected a strict compliance with its terms. Nothing more was done until April 8th, when the plaintiff again wrote to Woodward & Gerrish, inquiring if they would tell her what she must do to effect a settlement without returning to Berlin. This letter was not answered. May 2d, she wrote to them again, saying that the defendants did not answer her letter, and on May 4th Woodward replied that the defendants would have adjusted the loss soon after the fire if they had not been told there was no one in Berlin to settle with, and that he could not advise her in the matter. The court found that the defendants require their local agents to fully explain to policy holders the conditions of their contracts and to advise them as to the necessary formalities to be observed in case of loss; that if this had been done in the present case the plaintiff would have seasonably furnished proper...