Ford v. U.S. Mut. Accident Relief Co.

• Decision Date: 01 January 1889
• Citation: 19 N.E. 169,148 Mass. 153
• Parties: FORD v. UNITED STATES MUT. ACC. RELIEF CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

148 Mass. 153

19 N.E. 169

FORD v. UNITED STATES MUT. ACC. RELIEF CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

January 1, 1889

January 1, 1889

HEADNOTES

COUNSEL

J.E Pearl and J.R. Smith, for plaintiff.

I.F Colby, for defendant.

OPINION

C. ALLEN, J.

1. No question was raised at the trial as to the authority of the secretary to represent the company, and none is open here. The only question before us, as to the validity of the new or substituted policy, is whether it was beyond the power of the company itself to issue the new policy after the plaintiff's accident had occurred; and we can have no doubt upon this point. In the original policy the plaintiff's occupation was not correctly stated. There was no mention that he was a leather-cutter, and yet his injury was received while pursuing that part of his occupation. How this mistake happened to be made is not stated. The new policy was issued for the purpose of correcting it; and, without inquiring whether there were sufficient facts to show that the company might have been compelled in equity to make the correction, it clearly had the power to do so. Mead v. Davison, 3 Adol. & E. 303; Spalding v. Conant, 146 Mass. 292, 15 N.E. 638.

2. The more difficult question is whether the ruling was right that the plaintiff was insured only as a leather-cutter, and that he was entitled to recover, if wholly disabled from the prosecution of that occupation. The policy upon its face describes the insured as "by occupation, profession, or employment a leather-cutter and merchant." It then provides, among other things, that "if the insured shall sustain bodily injuries, *** which shall *** immediately and wholly disable and prevent him from the prosecution of any and every kind of business pertaining to the occupation under which he is insured," then he is to be indemnified in the sum of $15 per week. The policy then goes on to recite that "he is insured under classification medium," but that engaging in a more hazardous occupation will not wholly vitiate the policy, but in such case, he shall receive only a proportionate compensation. On the back of the policy is a classification of risks, in which the "preferred" class, which is most liberal in its indemnity to the insured, includes "merchant;" and the "medium" class, which provides for less indemnity, does not in terms include "leather-cutter." The classification of risks upon the back of the policy cannot...