Kimball v. Lion Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 23 August 1883 |
| Citation | 17 F. 625 |
| Parties | KIMBALL v. LION INS. CO. SAME v. MERIDEN FIRE INS. CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island |
C. P Robinson, for plaintiff.
Miner & Roelker, for defendants.
Before LOWELL and COLT, JJ.
These cases were heard together, and raise interesting questions in the law of insurance.
The plaintiff was the owner of a mill at Burrillville, Rhode Island, to which he had made an addition, and happening to be in the office of his insurance agent at Providence, in the afternoon of October 14, 1881, he asked the agent Mr. Shove to procure him insurance for $5,000 in addition to $37,000 which he already had on his mill, machinery, and stock. The agent had taken as much of the risk as he thought advisable in the companies which he represented, and his son, by his direction, applied by telephone to another insurance agent in Providence, Mr. Spencer, who agreed to take the $5,000 in the defendant companies, one-half in each. Nothing was said about the rate of premium, the time for which the policy was to run, or the apportionment between the old and the new mill, or between buildings, machinery, and stock. Upon the acceptance by Spencer, the plaintiff's agent said that he would call in the morning with a form. Spencer already had insurance on the plaintiff's property in another company, and he proceeded to enter in his book the $5,000, divided equally between the two defendant companies, and apportioned between buildings, machinery, and stock in the same proportion as in the former policy, and at the same rate of premium. This occurred at a quarter before 6 o'clock in the evening, and in the mean time the premises had caught fire about noon of the same day, and were by this time much damaged. The existence of the fire was not known to any of the persons concerned in the negotiation. The evidence tended to show a custom to make all risks in policies against fire begin and end at noon, which is thought to be convenient for both parties, but more particularly for the underwriters, and they insist upon following the practice. If, therefore, a person procuring insurance is unwilling to date his policy from the noon next after his application, he may have it dated back to the noon next before; in this case it would be 12 o'clock of the date of the fire. The plaintiff contends that by virtue of this practice he had the promise of a policy from that hour.
We are of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. A. C. Smith Motor Sales Co.
...on Contracts, page 50; Lumber Co. v. Insurance Company, 94 Wis. (1907) --; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Trible, 78 S.W. 465; Kimball v. Insurance Co., 17 F. 625; Klein Insurance Co., 117 Mich. 469; Fire Insurance Co. v. Morris et al. , 18 So. 36; Insurance Co. v. Whitman, 75 Ohio 321; Baptist ......
-
Niagara Ins. Co. v. Warren-Gee Lumber Co.
... ... complete. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Babcock, 69 Am ... St. Rep. 137, 144; Alabama Gold Life Ins. Co. v ... Mayes, 61 Ala. 163; Kimball v. Lion Ins. Co., ... 17 F. 625; Western Assurance Co. v. McAlpin (Ind.), ... 77 Am. St. Rep. 423; Johnson v. Connecticut Ins. Co., 84 Ky ... ...
-
Ogle Lake Shingle Co. v. National Lumber Ins. Co.
... ... between the two. Until this was done, and the minds of the ... parties had so met, there could be no contract. Kimball ... v. Lion Ins. Co. (C. C.) 17 F. 625; Mattoon Mfg. Co ... v. Oshkosh Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 69 Wis. 564, 35 N.W. 12; ... Croft v ... ...
-
Imboden v. Detroit Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
...are directly in point and forcibly apposite. 1 Wood on Fire Ins., 19, note; Tyler v. Ins. Co., 4 Rob. (N. Y.) 151, 155, et seq.; Kimball v. Ins. Co., 17 F. 625. Concerning points four, five, and six made by the plaintiff we make these suggestions: (a ) There was no allegation in the petitio......