Kahn v. Traders Insurance Company

• Decision Date: 01 December 1893
• Citation: 4 Wyo. 419,34 P. 1059
• Parties: KAHN v. TRADERS INSURANCE COMPANY
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

34 P. 1059

4 Wyo. 419

KAHN
v.
TRADERS INSURANCE COMPANY

Supreme Court of Wyoming

December 1, 1893

Commenced in District Court April 16, 1891.

ERROR to District Court for Laramie County. HON. RICHARD H. SCOTT, Judge.

Action on a fire insurance policy by Gus Kahn against the Traders Insurance Company. Verdict was for plaintiff. The district court vacated the verdict, and upon the refusal of the plaintiff to further prosecute the case in that court, and his election to stand upon his execptions to the orders vacating the verdict and overruling the motion for judgment upon the verdict, the action was ordered dismissed at plaintiff's costs, and judgment was rendered in favor of defendant for costs. Plaintiff prosecuted error. The material facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Order reversed and cause remanded.

Walter R. Stoll, for plaintiff in error.

The agent who issued the policy was a general agent for a limited territory with power to bind the company by his conduct, representations, and declarations, and to waive conditions of the policy. (Wood on Ins., Sec. 419; Rivara v. Ins. Co., 62 Miss. 728; Lamberton v. Ins. Co., 39 Minn. 129; Reiner v. Ins. Co., 74 Wis. 89; German Ins. Co., v. Gray, 43 Kan. 497; Ins. Co. v. McLanathan, 11 Kan. 413; Ins. Co. v. Earle, 33 Mich. 143; Continental Ins. Co. v. Ruckman, 127 Ill. 364; Krumm v. Ins. Co., 40 O. St., 225; Gans v. Ins. Co., 43 Wis. 113; Young v. Ins. Co., 45 Ia. 377; Ins. Co. v. Fahrenkrug, 68 Ill. 467; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Spiers,, 87 Ky. 285; Carroll v. Ins. Co., 40 Barb., 292; Lightbody v. Ins. Co., 23 Wend., 22; Post v. Ins. Co., 43 Barb., 361; Franklin v. Ins. Co., 42 Mo. 456; Richmond v. Ins. Co., 79 N.Y. 239; Eastern R. R. Co. v. Ins. Co., 105 Mass. 578; Ins. Co. v. Green, 57 Ga. 472; Rev. Stat. Wyo. Secs. 625-626.) Arbitration is not a condition precedent to the right to recover for a total loss. The objection that an award of arbitrators has not been had should be taken by answer. (Pioneer Mfg. Co. v. Ins. Co., 106 N.C. 28; Adams v. Ins. Co. (Ia.), 51 N. W., 1149; Gasser v. Sun Fire Office, 42 Minn. 315; Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 45 Kan. 250; Randall v. Amer. Ins. Co., 10 Mont. 340; Abbott's Trial Br. on Pl., Secs. 811, 816, 817.) An award of arbitration is not a condition precedent without an express stipulation to that effect. (Gere v. Ins. Co., 67 Ia. 272; Crossley v. Conn. Fire Ins. Co., 27 F. 30; Canfield v. Ins. Co., 55 Wis. 419; Ins. Co. v. Pulver, 126 Ill. 329; Ins. Co. v. Creighton, 51 Ga. 110; Robinson v. Ins. Co., 17 Me. 131; Reed v. Ins. Co., 138 Mass. 572; Allegre v. Ins. Co., 6 Har. & J. (Md.) 408; Hamilton v. Home Ins. Co., 137 U.S. 712; Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 45 Kan. 250.) Otherwise an agreement for arbitration is a collateral agreement only. (Hamilton v. Ins. Co., 137 U.S. 370.) Defendant must show that it made an effort to secure arbitration. (Vangindertaelen v. Ins. Co., 82 Wis. 112; Abbott's Trial Br. on Pl., 188; Ins. Co. v. Steiger, 109 Ill. 256; Wallace v. Ins. Co., 2 Fed., 659; id., 41 F. 743; Ins. Co. v. Badger, 53 Wis. 283; Nurney v. Ins. Co., 63 Mich. 638; Morley v. Ins. Co., 85 Mich. 210; Hutchinson v. Ins. Co., 153 Mass. 143; Ins. Co. v. Etherton, 25 Neb. 505; Randall v. Ins. Co., 10 Mont. 340; Farnum v. Ins. Co., 83 Cal. 246.)

Lacey & Van Devanter, for defendant in error.

An order granting a new trial, upon motion after verdict and before judgment, is not a final order from which a proceeding in error will lie. (Rev. Stat., 3126; Concord v. Runnels, 23 O. St., 601; Hauff v. R. R. Co., 5 Ohio C. C., 470; Artman v. West Pt. Mfg. Co., 16 Neb. 572; Menardi v. O'Malley, 3 Wyo. 327; Gramm v. Fisher, 3 Wyo. 595; Rev. Stat., 2657.) The order of dismissal was not made in course of determination of the action, but because plaintiff declined to prosecute his action further. The order was not objected nor excepted to. Asking time to present a bill of exceptions does not amount to reserving an exception. (U. S. v. Trabing, 3 Wyo. 144.) There is nothing for review. (Jackson v. Jackson, 16 O. St., 163; Wells v. Martin, 1 O. St., 386; Sutherland Stat. Const., 256; Smith v. B'd of Ed., 27 O. St., 44.) If the granting of a new trial is subject to review, the ruling will not be reversed except for a clear abuse of discretion certainly and conclusively shown by the record. (Howell v. Pugh, 25 Kan. 96; City, etc., v. Church, 29 Kan. 190; Field v. Kinnear, 5 Kan. 233; McCrum v. Corby, 15 Kan. 112; Halpin v. Nelson, 76 Ia. 427; Rubel v. McDonald, 7 Ia., 90; White v. Poorman, 24 Ia. 108; Moran v. Harris, 63 Ia. 390; Oliver v. Pace, 6 Ga., 185; Wheeler v. Robinson, 81 Ga. 303; Nagle v. Hamberger, 6 Ind. 69; Collingwood v. Ry. Co., 54 Ind. 15; Warner v. Michelstetter, 77 Wis. 647; McLimans v. City, etc., 57 Wis. 297; Drake v. Burlingame, 2 Cal. 177; Breckenridge v. Crocker, 68 Cal. 403; Fox v. So. Pac., 95 Cal. 234; Miller v. Ins. Co., 12 W.Va. 116; Demueles v. Ry. Co., 44 Minn. 436.) The several provisions of the policy construed together expressly makes arbitration a condition precedent to a right of action. Express provision to the effect is unnecessary. It may become so by clear implication. (Gasser v. Sun Fire Office, 42 Minn. 315; Saucelito v. Ins. Co., 66 Cal. 253; Adams v. Ins. Co., 70 Cal. 198; Carroll v. Ins. Co., 72 Cal. 297; Chippewa Co. v. Ins. Co., 80 Mich. 116; Gauche v. Ins. Co., 10 F. 347; Hamilton v. Ins. Co., 136 U.S. 242; Mosness v. Ins. Co., 52 N. W., 932; Del., etc., Canal Co. v. Coal Co., 50 N.Y. 250; Ins. Co. v. Clancy 71 Tex. 5; Wolff v. Ins. Co., 50 N. J. L., 453; Holmes v. Richet, 56 Cal. 307; Perkins v. Electric L't Co., 16 F. 513; Hood v. Hartshorn, 100 Mass. 117; U. S. v. Robeson, 9 Pet., 319; Pioneer Mfg. Co. v. Assurance Co., 106 N.C. 28; Fox v. R. R., 3 Wallace Jr., 243; Hudson v. McCartney, 33 Wis. 331; Kurche v. Ry. Co., 34 F. 471; Hall v. Ins. Co., 57 Conn. 105.) Arbitration being a condition precedent a failure thereof was not required to be affirmatively pleaded as a defense. (Maxwell Code Pl., 80-82; Baylies Code Pl., 36 and 136; 1 Boone Code Pl. , Sec. 22; Bliss Code Pl., Secs 287 and 301-2; 1 Chitty Pl. (16 Am. Ed.), Secs. 329-337; Abbotts Br. Pl., Secs. 179-190; Carroll v. Girard Ins. Co., supra; Mosness v. Ins. Co., supra; Morley v. Ins. Co., supra; Fox v. Railroad, supra; Hudson v. McCartney, supra; Jonston v. Howard, 20 Minn. 370; Boon v. Ins. Co., 37 Minn. 426; Ins. Co. v. Duke, 43 Ind. 418; Reinig v. Buffalo, 102 N.Y. 308; Selover v. Coe, 63 N.Y. 438; Doyle v. Ins. Co., 44 Cal. 264; Cowan v. Ins. Co., 78 Cal. 181; Carberry v. Ins. Co., 51 Wis. 605; Von Genechtin v. Ins. Co., 75 Ia. 544; Rev. Stat. Wyo. Sec. 2478.) It was the duty of the assured not the insurer to initiate arbitration proceedings. The company was the debtor and could remain silent. (Chippewa Co. v. Ins. Co., 80 Mich. 116; Morley v. Ins. Co., supra; Kurche v. Ry. Co., supra; Hood v. Hartshorn, 100 Mass. 117.) Neither the agent nor adjuster could waive the condition of the policy relating to additional insurance, and neither of them could revive the policy after it had been avoided by taking the additional insurance. (Cleaver v. Traders Ins. Co., 65 Mich. 527; Ins. Co. v. Heiduk, 30 Neb. 288; Bush v. Ins. Co., 63 N.Y. 531; Walsh v. Ins. Co., 73; id., 5; Marvin v. Ins. Co., 85 id., 278; Weed v. Ins. Co., 116 id., 106; Baumgartel v. Ins. Co., 32 N.E. 990; Quinlan v. Ins. Co., 31 N. E., 31; Messelbach v. Norman, 122 N.Y. 578; Allen v. Ins. Co., 123 id., 6; Hankins v. Ins. Co., 70 Wis. 1; Knudson v. Ins. Co., 75 id., 198; Shugart v. Ins. Co., 55 Cal. 408; Enos v. Ins. Co., 67 id., 621; Lohnes v. Ins. Co., 121 Mass. 439; Kyte v. Ins. Co., 144 id., 43; Putnam v. Ins. Co., 145 id., 265; Ins. Co. v. Fletcher, 117 U.S. 519; Fitzpatrick v. Ins. Co., 53 Ia. 335; Barre v. Ins. Co., 76 id., 609; Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, 4 Met. (Ky.), 9; Zimmerman v. Ins. Co., 77 Ia. 685; Weidert v. Ins. Co., 24 P. 242; Ins. Co. v. Huntzinger, 98 Pa. 41; Ins. Co. v. Conover, id., 384; Cator v. Ins. Co., 33 N. J. L., 487; Brown v. Ins. Co., 59 N.H. 298; Davis v. Ins. Co., 13 Blatch., 462.) The proofs of loss were not sufficient and the defects therein were not waived. (Blakely v. Ins. Co., 20 Wis. 205; Battaile v. Ins. Co., 3 Rob. (Ga.), 384; Ins. Co. v. Evans, 9 Md. 1; Ins. Co. v. Doll, 35 id., 89; Hanna v. Ins. Co., 36 Mo. App.; 10 F. 347; Ins. Co. v. Updegraff, 40 Pa. 311; Blossom v. Ins. Co., 64 N.Y. 162; Engebretson v. Ins. Co., 53 Wis. 301; Beatty v. Ins. Co., 66 Pa. 9.) The schedule was not competent evidence of either the amount or value of the property destroyed. (Ins. Co. v. Doll, supra; Ins. Co. v. Sennett, 41 Pa. 161; Browne v. Ins. Co., 68 Mo. 133.) The testimony respecting offers of settlement made by the adjuster was inadmissible. (Richards v. Ins. Co., 83 Mich. 508.) Plaintiff was guilty of intentional false swearing under the policy, and the instructions of the court in that respect were wholly disregarded by the jury, thus rendering the verdict contrary to law. (Leach v. Ins. Co., 58 N.H. 245; Mullen v. Ins. Co., 58 Vt. 113; Claflin v. Ins. Co., 110 U.S. 81.)

W. R. Stoll, in reply.

An order granting a new trial is subject to review. (Johnson v. Parrotte, 34 Neb. 26; Kruger v. The Adams, etc., Co., 9 Neb., 526; Husted v. Meade, 58 Conn. 55; Spears v. Bond, 79 Mo. 467; Berry v. Zimmermann, 43 Mo. 215; Robinson v. Co. Court, 32 Mo. 428; Kirchner v. Wood, 48 Mich. 199; Harris v. Walsh (Dak.), 3 N. W., 307.) When a party complains of error in the granting of a new trial, he must except to the ruling, and there abandon his case, and permit an order to be entered dismissing the case. Such an order is final and from it an appeal will lie. (Iron M't B'k. v. Armstrong, 92 Mo. 265; Gilstrap v. Felts, 50 Mo. 428; Davis v. Davis, 8 id., 56; Bowie v. Kansas City, 51 id., 454; Martin v. Henley, 13 id., 312; St. Joseph, etc., Co. v. The Hannibal, etc., Co., 94 Mo. 335; McDonough v. Micholson, 46 id., 35; Byers v. Butterfield, 33 id., 376; Emerson...