Glens Falls Insurance Company v. Michael
Decision Date | 17 January 1907 |
Docket Number | 20,432 |
Citation | 79 N.E. 905,167 Ind. 659 |
Parties | Glens Falls Insurance Company v. Michael et al |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Original Opinion of June 8, 1905, Reported at: 167 at 659.
Appellant has petitioned for a rehearing and supported the same by an able argument on the part of its counsel. We have examined the authorities cited by counsel and have again given the case careful and patient consideration. Upon the question here involved the authorities may be said to "fight on both sides." Nevertheless, they are not so overwhelmingly on either side that they should be held, as seemingly insisted, to preclude us from adopting and following what we believe to be the better rule and the one which, because of its fairness and reasonableness, commends itself to our approval. It is admitted that our holding at the former hearing upon the point in issue is sustained by the supreme courts of Nebraska, Montana, Washington California, and "possibly Kentucky," and by the decision of the court in the case of Manchester Fire Assur. Co. v. Abrams (1898), 89 F. 932, 32 C C. A. 426, but this concession is certainly too narrow, for, with the courts hereinbefore mentioned must be classed or included the supreme courts of Michigan, Oregon, Virginia, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Alabama, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and probably New York. The decisions of some of the latter courts directly sustain the doctrine in question, while others may at least be said indirectly to support the principle. To the cases or authorities cited and relied on by this court in its original opinion herein, we may add the following: Allesina v. London Ins. Co. (1904), 45 Ore. 441, 78 P. 392; Union Assur. Soc. v. Nalls (1903), 101 Va. 613, 44 S.E. 896, 99 Am. St. 923; Farmers, etc., Ins. Co. v. Mickel (1904), (Neb.), 72 Neb. 122, 100 N.W. 130; Brunswick, etc., Co. v. Northern Assur. Co. (1905), 142 Mich. 29, 105 N.W. 76; 1 Wood, Insurance (2d ed.), § 176; 3 Cooley, Briefs on Insurance, 2630, 2631.
In the appeal of Allesina v. London Ins. Co. supra, the policy there involved, when issued, contained a printed provision that it should be void "if the subject of the insurance be personal property, and be or become encumbered by a chattel mortgage." This policy was issued upon an oral application, the agent of the company making no inquiry of the insured concerning liens or encumbrances upon the property, nor were there any statements or representations made in reference thereto by the insured, and he had no knowledge that such information was material, or that the policy to be delivered would contain any provision in reference thereto, or that if the company knew of the mortgage upon the property it would decline to assume the risk. The insured paid and the company received and accepted the premiums, and the property was destroyed by fire during the life of the policy. The court, in that case, said: "The only question on this appeal is whether, under these circumstances, the defendant can defeat a recovery on the ground that the policy issued by it and delivered to the plaintiff and for which he paid and it accepted and retained his money was invalid from the beginning because of the mortgage clause." This case, under the facts, may be said to be on principle on "all fours" with the case at bar. The policy involved in that appeal was sustained. In deciding the case the court, in the course of its opinion, said: In 1 Wood, Insurance (2d ed.), § 176, the rule is stated as follows: In 3 Cooley, Briefs on Insurance, pp. 2630, 2631, the author says: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial