Rice v. Hartford Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 15 September 1908
• Citation: 50 Wash. 346,97 P. 238
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: RICE v. HARTFORD INS. CO.

97 P. 238

50 Wash. 346

RICE v. HARTFORD INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 15, 1908

Appeal from Superior Court, Skagit County; Geo. A. Joiner, Judge.

Action by John Rice against the Hartford Insurance Company on a fire policy. Judgment of dismissal, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Howard Seabury and Smith & Brawley, for appellant.

Granger & Magill, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

The respondent, on December 21, 1905, issued its policy of insurance to the appellant, whereby it insured the appellant's dwelling house and the furniture therein in the sum of $350 against loss by fire for a period of three years. The policy contained the following claused. 'This entire policy, unless otherwise provided by agreement indorsed herein or added hereto, shall be void if the insured now has or shall hereafter make or procure any other contract of insurance, whether valid or not, on property covered in whole or in part by this policy.' The policy was procured by the appellant through an agent of the respondent company residing at the appellant's home town, and when written was left with the agent for safe-keeping. The appellant did not examine the policy after its issuance, and had no actual knowledge that it contained the clause above cited. The arrangement for safe-keeping the policy, however was between the agent individually and the appellant, and could have been seen by the appellant at any time, had he so desired. On May 15, 1906, the appellant, being still in ignorance of this condition of the policy, and in ignorance of any custom of insurance companies to place such a clause in their policies, applied orally and obtained insurance in the sum of $500 from another insurance company, on the property described in the policy in suit. Thereafter the dwelling house and its contents were totally destroyed by fire, without fault on the part of the appellant, resulting in a loss to him far in excess of the amount of the insurance in both of the policies. This action was brought to recover upon the insurance policy first mentioned. The trial court held, on the foregoing facts appearing, that the policy was void, and entered judgment dismissing the action.

The only question presented on this appeal is whether the policy was avoided by the fact that the respondent procured additional insurance without the consent of the appellant indorsed on or added to the policy. The appellant concedes that the great weight, if not the entire current, of authority in other jurisdictions is against him, but he argues that this court has adopted a more liberal...