Jauvrin v. Rockingham Farmers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 March 1900 |
| Citation | 70 N.H. 35,46 A. 686 |
| Parties | JAUVRIN v. ROCKINGHAM FARMERS' MUT. FIRE INS. CO. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Action by Zelphia A. Jauvrin against the Rockingham Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance Company. Case discharged.
Assumpsit upon a policy of insurance upon the plaintiff's dwelling house. Facts agreed. At the date of the policy the only exposures to said dwelling house were other farm risks or dwellings. Subsequent to the date of the policy, a third party erected on his land a building between the plaintiff's dwelling house and the nearest exposure mentioned in the application, which building so erected was occupied as a grocery store and public hall, and was a more hazardous risk than the property insured by the defendant. The plaintiff knew of the erection of this new building, and its continuance there, but the defendant did not. April 14, 1899, the new building caught fire, and was destroyed, and fire was communicated thereby to the plaintiff's dwelling house, which was destroyed.
Page & Bartlett, for plaintiff. Henry A. Shute, for defendant.
WALLACE, J.The policy, which was in the standard form prescribed by the legislature, provided that it should be void if, without the consent of the company, "the situation or circumstances affecting the risk shall by or with the knowledge, advice, agency, or consent of the insured be so altered as to cause an increase of such risk." The breach of the condition complained of is an increase of risk caused by the erection of a building by a third person on his land adjoining the insured premises, with the knowledge of the assured, but without her consent. This condition does not relate to the situation existing at the time of the execution of the contract of insurance, but to the situation and circumstances affecting the risk arising during the term of the policy. The effect of the provision, when there is a substantial increase of the risk known to the assured, is to invalidate the policy unless the company assent to the changed conditions. Although this construction avoids the policy by reason of the acts of persons other than the assured, and in respect to property other than that insured, yet. where the stipulations of the contract plainly so provide, it has been upheld in this and other jurisdictions. Shepherd v. Insurance Co., 38 N. H. 232, 239; Davis v. Insurance Co., 67 N. H. 335, 39 Atl. 902; Lyman v. Insurance Co., 14 Allen, 329; First Cong. Church v. North British &...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stevens v. Mut. Prot. Fire Ins. Co.
...the risk shall * * * be so altered as to cause an increase of such risk," must be given a reasonable construction. Janvrin v. Insurance Co., 70 N. H. 35, 36, 46 A. 686, 687. In construing the same language, this court there said: "From the nature of things, there must necessarily be more or......
- McGill v. Maine & N. H. Granite Co.
-
Golding-Keene Co. v. Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co.
...risks. It is only those which result in a materially increased risk that make the policy inoperative, Janvrin v. Rockingham Farmers' Mut. Fire Insurance Co., 70 N.H. 35, 36, 46 A. 686. The change must be one that would '* * * materially and substantially enhance the hazard as viewed by a pe......
-
Davidson v. Am. Cent. Ins. Co.
...for the jury. Clark v. Insurance Co., 40 N. H. 333, 77 Am. Dec. 721; Davis v. Insurance Co., 67 N. H. 335, 30 Atl. 902; Janvrin v. Insurance Co., 70 N. H. 35, 46 Atl. 686. And it was submitted to them by the court under proper instructions, and their finding thereon, which must have been fo......