Roger Williams Ins. Co. v. Carrington

• Decision Date: 18 April 1880
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: ROGER WILLIAMS INSURANCE COMPANY v. CARRINGTON.

5 N.W. 303

43 Mich. 252

ROGER WILLIAMS INSURANCE COMPANY v. CARRINGTON.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 18, 1880

A policy of insurance may be assigned, after loss occurs without consent of the company. Certain findings of the jury held sustained by the evidence. Insurance contracts need not be in writing to be valid.

Error to St. Clair.

Whipple & Voorheis, for plaintiff in error.

O'Brien J. Atkinson, and Elliott G. Stephenson, for defendant in error.

CAMPBELL J.

Action was brought in the circuit court for the county of St. Clair by Carrington, as assignee of a policy of insurance originally issued by plaintiff in error to Angeline James, on a livery stable stock in Port Huron. The policy bore date October 16, 1876, and was assigned after the property insured was burned up. The fire which destroyed the property was in September, 1877. The policy was, by its terms, made payable to Carrington as his interest should appear. It was thus arranged to secure a debt due him from Mrs. James, and secured. At the time of the fire the horses and carriages and other livery property destroyed were in a livery stable at Lexington, to which place the business had been removed in November, 1876, and one of the questions presented related to the effect of this removal. The company, after the loss repudiated any liability on the ground that no such policy was in force.

There is some difficulty in applying the assignments of error in this case, but, perhaps, they present sufficiently the more important issues.

Proof of loss was made in final shape about three months after the fire. It was not objected to for delay, but for want of any insurance. There was evidence bearing very plainly on difficulties of proof caused by this dispute as to the existence of the policy, and we do not think there was anything which, as matter of law, made the delay sufficient for a forfeiture.

The assignment having been made after the loss did not require consent of the company. The provision of the policy forfeiting it for an assignment without the company's consent is invalid, so far as it applies to the transfer of an accrued cause of action. It is the absolute right of every person--secured in this state by statute--to assign such claims, and such a right cannot be thus prevented. It cannot concern the debtor, and it is against public policy.

Two principal questions arose on the trial--First, whether the policy was originally valid and continued uncancelled; and second, whether the removal to Lexington put an end to its force, if otherwise in existence?

The original execution of the policy was admitted, but it was claimed to have been cancelled for non-payment of premium. It is not claimed that notice of cancellation was given to the insured, and the verdict negatives it. But it is claimed that Linnaeus Noble, the insurance agent who issued the policy was acting in the capacity of agent for Mrs. James, and that the company, by notifying him, sufficiently notified her. Upon most of the leading facts Noble's testimony is contradicted, and it was a question of fact for the jury what transactions really occurred throughout. There was a conflict as to the precise relations of the parties concerning the obtaining of this particular policy, and how far Noble acted for Mrs. James...