National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Avant
Decision Date | 26 January 1925 |
Docket Number | 122 |
Citation | 268 S.W. 20,167 Ark. 307 |
Parties | NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO. v. AVANT |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Francis Circuit Court; E. D. Robertson, Judge affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Mann & Mann, for appellant.
An insurance company has the right to fix the terms and conditions upon which it would insure property. 62 Ark. 348; 65 Ark. 295. A "rider" or mortgage clause is a part of the policy when attached to the policy at the time of delivery. 30 L. R. A. 636; 153 N.C. 285; 69 S.E. 214; 138 A S. 665. In the absence of fraud, a person executing a written contract is bound by its provisions. 133 N.Y. 356; 28 A. S R. 645; 43 Kan. 15; 19 A. S. R. 118; 71 Mich. 414; 15 A. S. R. 275; 69 Tex. 353; 5 A. S. R. 63. The extension of the time of the payment of the notes was a breach of the warranty and therefore voided the policy. 119 Ark. 597; 72 Ark. 47; 77 Ark. 57; 152 Ark. 65; 153 Ark. 156; 72 N.J.L. 289; 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 107; 125 Ark. 93; 79 Tex. 23; 11 L. R. A. 293; 111 Ark. 167; 120 F. 916; 61 L. R. A. 137; 69 Ark. 295; 171 Mo. 143; 71 S.W. 160; 94 A. S. R. 778; 53 Ark. 53; 58 Ark. 276; 62 Ark. 276.
S. S. Hargraves and John M. Prewitt, for appellee.
Any ambiguities in an insurance policy must be most strongly construed against the insurance company. 50 Am. St. Rep. 832; 22 Am. St. Rep. 324; 25 Am. St. Rep. 773; 65 Am. St. Rep. 264; 69 Am. St. Rep. 134; 77 Am. St. Rep. 129. Forfeitures are not favored, and should not be enforced by the courts unless compelled to do so. 73 Am. St. Rep. 532; 78 N.W. 300; 45 N.W. 171; 83 N.W. 78. Stipulations and conditions in policies of insurance are to have a reasonable intendment and are to be construed, if possible, so as to avoid forfeitures and to advance the beneficial purposes intended. 97 Ga. 44; 69 Am. St. Rep. 143; C. & M. Digest, § 6148.
This is an action by the appellee on a fire insurance policy issued to the appellee by the appellant, in which the appellant undertook to indemnify the appellee against loss or damage by fire to a seven-passenger touring car. The car was totally destroyed by fire while the policy was in force, and the appellee alleged that he had fully complied with the terms of the policy on his part, and prayed, judgment in the sum of $ 500 and for penalty and costs.
The appellant admitted the issuance of the policy and the loss, but set up in defense that the policy contained a loss-payable clause in favor of the mortgagee of the car, Karakoffe Motor Company, which clause contained a promissory warranty or condition that the policy should be wholly void if any of the notes due the mortgagee should not be completely paid on or before ten days after the maturity thereof, or if any change be made in any of the notes representing the incumbrance otherwise than by the payment thereof. The appellant alleged that, at the time the car was destroyed by fire, said notes due the mortgagee were past due and unpaid for more than ten days after maturity, and therefore the policy was void as to the appellee. Appellant further alleged that the mortgagee had been paid the amount of appellee's indebtedness to it.
The appellee testified, among other things, as follows: The appellee identified and introduced the policy which recites that, in consideration of the warranties and the premium mentioned, it insured the automobile described therein to an amount not exceeding the amount specified therein.
Under the title "warranties" in the policy, the policy contains the recital that "the following are statements of facts known to and warranted by the assured to be true, and this policy is issued by the company relying upon the truth thereof." Then follows, among other things, a loss-payable clause, in which it is recited that the appellee owed a balance on the purchase price of the automobile of $ 350, evidenced by seven notes of $ 50 each, payable on the 22d day of each month, beginning with July, 1922, and reciting that the policy There was the further provision in the loss-payable clause to the effect that the interest of the owner of the notes only shall not be invalidated by the failure of the assured to pay any of the notes within the time specified, and, in such case, the liability of the company under the policy shall be to the Karakoffe Motor Company only, and limited to the amount of the principal and interest then unpaid on said notes. There is a further provision to the effect that the policy is made and accepted subject to the provisions, exclusions, conditions and warranties set forth herein or indorsed hereon, and that the insured agrees that its terms embody all agreements then existing between himself and the company.
The testimony on behalf of the appellant was to the effect that the Karakoffe Motor Company sold the automobile to the appellee, the entire consideration being the sum of $ 850. The company took a mortgage for the balance due on the purchase money, $ 350, evidenced by notes in the sum of $ 50 each, payable in seven installments. The first one or two notes were paid as they fell due. At the time the car burned three of the notes were unpaid. The company extended the time for payment of one or two of the notes, and did not notify the insurance company of the extension. The insurance company inserted a loss-payable clause in the policy at the time it was issued. The insured knew that such clause was in the policy. The premium of $ 14.75 was paid, and carried the policy for a year. The premium was not reduced by reason of the fact that the loss-payable clause was inserted.
The court gave instructions as to the burden of proof and the credibility of witnesses, and refused to grant appellant's prayer for instructions as follows:
The appellant duly excepted to the ruling of the court in the refusal of these instructions.
The jury returned a verdict against the appellant for the amount of the policy, less the amount paid the Karakoffe Motor Company, in the sum of $ 340.56. The court entered a judgment in favor of the appellee for that sum, from which is this appeal.
The policy, according to its recitals, was issued "in consideration of the warranties and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. McKenzie
...as reduced by subsequent payments. The principle involved in these cases was recognized by this court in National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Avant, 167 Ark. 307, 268 S.W. 20, 22. In that case the loss payable clause in an automobile policy provided that the policy would be wholly void if any of......
-
American Indemnity Company v. Hood
... ... insurance against loss by fire, etc., which policy he ... procured ... one. This does not contravene the doctrine of National ... Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Avant, 167 Ark. 307, 268 ... ...
-
National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Henry
... ... circumstances in this case did not deprive it of that right ... There was no change that was detrimental to the insurer, and ... this court has held that changes referred to in the policy ... mean changes detrimental to the insurer. National Fire ... Ins. Co. v. Avant, 167 Ark. 307, 268 S.W. 20 ... "Under ... modern practice acts, however, requiring all actions to be ... brought in the name of the real party in interest, it is the ... general rule that, where the mortgage equals or exceeds the ... loss under a policy containing a loss ... ...