Moore v. State Ins. Co.

• Citation: 72 Iowa 414,34 N.W. 183
• Parties: MOORE v. STATE INS. CO.
• Decision Date: 06 October 1887
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

72 Iowa 414

34 N.W. 183

MOORE

v.STATE INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

October 6, 1887.

Appeal from circuit court, Adams county.

Action upon a policy of insurance. A demurrer to the petition was sustained, and judgment rendered for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.Maxwell & Dale, W. S. Hefling, and R. A. Moore, for appellant.

Cummins & Wright, for appellee.

BECK, J.

1. The original notice of the commencement of the action was served February 11, 1886, and the petition was filed on the seventeenth of the same month. The policy in suit, a copy of which is made an exhibit to the petition, contains these, among other, conditions: “It is hereby agreed that no suit shall be brought for loss under this policy unless commenced within six months of the date of the loss; any statute or limitation to the contrary notwithstanding.” “This policy is made and accepted by the assured on the above conditions and stipulations hereto annexed, which are to be used and resorted to in order to explain the rights and obligations of the parties hereto.” The petition shows that the loss occurred August 29, 1884, and there is no allegation of facts intended to waive the conditions just quoted, or to take the action out of the bar raised thereby. The defendant demurred to the petition on the ground that it fails to show a cause of action, for the reason that the suit was not commenced within the time prescribed by the condition of the policy. The demurrer was sustained.

2. This court has in repeated decisions recognized the right of parties to policies of insurance to limit, by conditions therein, the time in which actions may be brought to recover for losses of property insured, and, sustaining such conditions, has held actions barred thereunder. This must be regarded as the settled doctrine of this court. Carter v. Insurance Co., 12 Iowa, 287;Stout v. Insurance Co., Id. 371; Longhurst v. Insurance Co., 19 Iowa, 370;Mickey v. Insurance Co., 35 Iowa, 175;Ellis v. Insurance Co., 64 Iowa, 507, 20 N. W. Rep. 782;Garretson v. Insurance Co., 65 Iowa, 468, 21 N. W. Rep. 781;Eggleston v. Insurance Co., 65 Iowa, 308, 21 N. W. Rep. 652;Cornett v. Insurance Co., 67 Iowa, 388, 25 N. W. Rep. 673;Bish v. Insurance Co., 69 Iowa, 184, 28 N. W. Rep. 553. Counsel for plaintiff present an elaborate and able argument in support of the position that the condition of the policy limiting the time within which an action may be brought thereon is against public policy, and is therefore void. They cite many authorities, and present many weighty arguments, in support of their position, which we cannot consider, in view of our conclusion that the contrary rule is settled by the decisions of this court, and that we cannot now disturb it.

3. Counsel insist that the conditions of the policy in question are void for the reason that they were not assented to by plaintiff. The policy is a unilateral contract, and...