Pottle v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 13 November 1911
• Citation: 81 A. 481,108 Me. 401
• Parties: POTTLE et al. v. LIVERPOOL & LONDON & GLOBE INS. CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

81 A. 481

108 Me. 401

POTTLE et al.

v. LIVERPOOL & LONDON & GLOBE INS. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Nov. 13, 1911.

On Motion from Supreme Judicial Court, Washington County.

Action by James W. Pottle and others against the Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Company. Verdict for plaintiffs, and defendant moves for a new trial. Motion sustained.

Assumpsit on a fire insurance policy, Maine standard form, issued by the defendant. Plea, the general issue, with a brief statement alleging, among other things, as follows:

"That the alleged fire originated by the voluntary act, design, and procurement of the plaintiffs, or one of them, whereby they attempted to defraud defendant, and that the policy declared on was thereby rendered void.

"That plaintiffs attempted to defraud the defendant by knowingly and intentionally including in their proof of loss personal property that was not in their store when the fire occurred, and which was not injured, destroyed, or lost by reason of said fire, and by knowingly and intentionally including in said proof of loss personal property that they did not know was in said store at the time of the fire, and destroyed, injured, or lost, and which they had no reasonable ground for believing was therein, and so destroyed, injured, or lost, and that said policy was thereby rendered void.

"That plaintiffs attempted to defraud the defendant by knowingly, willfully, and intentionally placing in their proof of loss a false and excessive valuation upon the several articles alleged to have been Injured, destroyed, or lost by reason of said fire, and by placing therein valuations on said articles that they did not know to be just and true, and had no reasonable grounds for believing to be just and true, and that said policy was thereby rendered void.

"That the insured property was exposed to loss or damage by fire to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, and they willfully, intentionally, and fraudulently neglected to make all reasonable exertions to save and protect the same, as required by the terms of said policy, thereby attempting to defraud the defendant, and rendering the policy void."

Verdict for plaintiffs for $1,293.75. The defendant filed a general motion for a new trial.

Argued before WHITEHOUSE, C. J., and SAVAGE, SPEAR, CORNISH, BIRD, and HALEY, JJ.

Hanson & St. Clair and R. J. McGarrigle, for plaintiffs.

C. B. & E C. Donworth, for defendant.

CORNISH, J. It is a firmly established legal doctrine that if a plaintiff in an action on a policy of fire insurance falsely and knowingly inserts in his sworn proof of loss any articles as burned which were not burned, or knowingly puts such a false and excessive valuation on single articles, or on the whole property, as displays a reckless disregard of truth, he cannot recover. His own fraudulent acts prohibit it. Dolloff v. Insurance Co., 82 Me. 266, 19 Atl. 396; Rovinsky v. Insurance Co., 100 Me. 112, 60 Atl. 1025.

A painstaking examination and consideration of the record in this case lead inevitably to the conclusion that, although these legal principles were clearly laid down in the charge of the presiding justice, they were ignored by the jury, and their verdict for the plaintiffs is manifestly wrong for that reason.

The plaintiffs were proprietors of a country store at North Perry, in the county of Washington, a rural community in which this was the only store, and in which a sawmill giving employment to about 35 men was the only industry. About 6 o'clock on the morning of October 18, 1909, smoke was discovered issuing from the roof of the building which the proprietors had left a few minutes...