Home Ins. Co. v. Allen

• Decision Date: 02 June 1892
• Citation: 19 S.W. 743,93 Ky. 270
• Parties: Home Ins. Co. v. Allen et al. Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Same.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

19 S.W. 743

93 Ky. 270

Home Ins. Co. v. Allen et al.

Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Same.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 2, 1892

Appeal from court of common pleas, Jefferson county.

"To be officially reported."

Actions on insurance policies by G. Baylor Allen and another against the Home Insurance Company, and the same against the Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Company. Plaintiffs had judgment in both cases, and defendants appeal. Reversed.

PRYOR J.

G Baylor Allen, being the owner of a farm in the county of Shelby, had two policies of insurance on the buildings, the one issued by the Home Insurance Company, and the other by the Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Company. The two policies expired on the 20th of August, in the year 1885, and had been issued, and the premiums paid, for several years prior to the date at which the insurance terminated. On the 26th of January, 1885, the insured, Baylor Allen, conveyed this land to his wife, Anna M. Allen, the deed being lodged for record on the next day. On the day the deed was filed with the clerk, Mrs. Merriwether, a creditor of Baylor Allen instituted an action against him for a large sum of money and had an attachment levied on this land, upon which the buildings stood, and in a few days thereafter, by an amended petition, assailed the conveyance to the wife, for actual fraud. On the 26th of March, 1885, the husband, by the consent of the insurance companies, assigned and transferred to his wife, Anna, all his right, title, and interest in and to those policies, and in the month of June following the property insured was destroyed by fire. on the hearing of the case between Mrs. Merriwether, as plaintiff, and Allen and wife, defendants, the conveyance to the wife was held fraudulent, and the land subjected to the payment of her debts. The defense in the court below was presented in several paragraphs: The first, that Mrs. Allen had no insurable interest in the property; second, that the policies became void, because it was stipulated "that if the interest of the assured in the property be any other than the entire, unconditional, and sole ownership thereof, for the use and benefit of the assured, the policy should be void; third, that the consent of the companies to the assignment of the policies was procured by fraud, in the concealment from them of facts material to the risk. That one may have an insurable interest in property although under a fraudulent conveyance, was held in the cases of Insurance Co. v. Mitchell, 67 Ill. 43, and in Lerow v. Wilmarth, 9...