Hardman v. Firemen's Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 April 1884 |
| Citation | 20 F. 594 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
| Parties | HARDMAN and others v. FIREMEN'S INS. CO. [1] |
E. D White, for plaintiffs.
Geo. H Braughn, Chas. F. Buck, and Max. Dinklespeil, for defendant.
This cause is submitted on a motion for a new trial. The action is on a policy of insurance. The defense was that there had been a suppression of, or a failure to disclose, a material fact. The fact insisted on as material was that one story of the large building in which plaintiffs' insured stock was situated, was occupied by the manufacturers of washing-machines, the insurance being on plaintiffs' stock and materials as manufacturers of pianos, and the answer of the plaintiffs to defendant's questions failing to disclose that there was any tenant in the building occupied by them other than themselves. The evidence established that the business of manufacturing 'washing-machines' was certainly no more hazardous than that of the manufacturing of pianos. The point urged by the defense was that the fact that two tenants occupied different portions of a building created an increased risk for goods or property situated in the building, as compared with the risk for the same goods when the building was occupied by the owner of the goods. The court charged the jury that if the occupation by two tenants rather than by one increased the risk, then there had been a failure to disclose a material fact, and the policy was void; but that if, on the other hand, the fact of the additional occupation did not increase the risk, there was no suppression which was material, and the policy was valid; and that the test of materiality was whether the disclosure of the fact would have influenced the rate of premium.
The two points urged by the defendant's counsel are (1) that the question was one of law and not of fact; and (2) that the weight of evidence was so great in favor of the materiality of the fact in question, that, even if the question was properly left to the jury, their verdict should be set aside.
1. I think the question here presented was one of fact, and not for legal inference, and the question was properly left to the jury. Ang. Fire & Life Ins. Co. Sec. 135; M'Lanahan v. Universal Ins. Co. 1 Pet. 170, 188.
2. As to the weight of the evidence, the defendants called I. N Marks, Esq., again, who testified most clearly and positively, as an expert, that the twofold tenancy increased the risk and rate of premium. If, as had been my...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commercial Union Ins. v. Detyens Shipyard
...Co., 1 Pet. 170, 7 L.Ed. 98; Phoenix Life Ins. Co. v. Raddin, 120 U.S. 183, 189, 7 S.Ct. 500, 30 L.Ed. 644 (1887); Hardman v. Firemen's Insurance Co., 20 F. 594 (C.C.). "Literally translated the phrase `uberrimae fidei' means of the utmost good faith." North American Specialty Insurance Co.......
-
Stipcich v. Metropolitan Life Ins Co
...Co., 1 Pet. 170, 7 L. Ed. 98; Phoenix Life Insurance Co. v. Raddin, 120 U. S. 183, 189, 7 S. Ct. 500 (30 L. Ed. 644); Hardman v. Firemen's Insurance Co. (C. C.) 20 F. 594. Concededly, the modern practice of requiring the applicant for life insurance to answer questions prepared by the insur......
-
Berglund v. State Farmers' Mutual Hail Insurance Company of Waseca, Minnesota
... ... policy. Rev. Codes 1905, § 5960; Peet v. Dakota F. & M. Ins. Co. 7 S.D. 410, 64 N.W. 206 ... Application ... for insurance, and statements ... 337, 1 S.Ct. 582; Vale v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 1 ... Wash. C. C. 283, F. Cas. No. 16,811; Hardman v ... Firemen's Ins. Co. (C. C.) 20 F. 594; Hamblet v ... City Ins. Co. (D. C.) 36 F. 118; ... ...
-
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Leong Dung Dye
...Ins. Co. v. Brimmer (C. C. A.) 36 F.(2d) 176, Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Wiggins (C. C. A.) 15 F.(2d) 646, or Hardman et al. v. Firemen's Ins. Co. (C. C.) 20 F. 594, cited by respondent, inconsistent with the foregoing conclusions; but if there is they cannot stand as authority agai......
-
CHAPTER 5
...v. Universal Insurance Co., 1 Pet. 170; Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Raddin, 120 U.S. 183, 189 (1887); Hardman v. Firemen’s Ins. Co., 20 F. 594 (C.C.E.D. La. 1884). Concededly, the modern practice of requiring the applicant for life insurance to answer questions prepared by the insurer has......
-
CHAPTER 5 RESCISSION OF INSURANCE POLICIES
...Co., 1 Pet. 170; Phoenix Life Ins. Co. v. Raddin, 120 U.S. 183, 189, 7 S. Ct. 500 (30 L. Ed. 644); Hardman v. Firemen's Ins. Co. (C. C.) 20 F. 594. Concededly, the modern practice of requiring the applicant for life insurance to answer questions prepared by the insurer has relaxed this rule......