Satterthwaite et al. v. Mutual Beneficial Insurance Association

• Decision Date: 01 January 1853
• Citation: 14 Pa. 393
• Parties: Satterthwaite et al. versus Mutual Beneficial Insurance Association.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

14 Pa. 393

Satterthwaite et al. versus Mutual Beneficial Insurance Association.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Bucks county.

Ross, for plaintiff in error.—That the suppression of a fact material to the risk, renders the contract void: Ellis on Insurance; 4 Law. Lib. 23; 3 Burr 1905; 14 East 494; 8 Mass. 336.

Dubois, for defendants in error.—That there are no provisions prescribed by the by-laws for any statement to be made by the insured, on making his application. Information respecting the subject-matter of insurance need not be communicated, unless there be a request: 2 Sel. N. P. 196. That it is presumed that the insurer is acquainted with the usage and circumstances of the branch of trade to which the policy relates: 9 Peters 557; 1 Wash. C. C. R. 283; id. 385; 2 Peters 25; 8 Pick. 86; 3 Kent. 285; 7 Wend. 72; 5 Hill 188.

The opinion of the court was delivered by BURNSIDE, J.

It is true that our law is well settled, that a concealment of facts material to the risk, and within the knowledge or power of the assured, and which the insured is not bound to know, vitiates the policy: Hazzard v. New Eng. Marine Ins. Co., 1 Wash. C. C. Rep. 283; 2 id. 357; 1 id. 566.

But is this principle to be applied to the case before us? This is a mutual insurance association or company, in which the defendants in error, the moment they effected a policy, were ipso facto members of the corporation, and as much bound by its constitution and by-laws as the other members of the institution: Susquehanna Ins. Co. v. Perrine, 7 W. & Ser. 348. Its principal capital was the deposit notes of the insured.

Was there an omission on the part of the assured, which the bylaws or printed and published regulations of the company required? Did they omit to perform any duty the company required? We look in vain into their printed constitution and by-laws for evidence which will enable us to answer either of these questions in the affirmative. The second section of the by-laws makes it the duty of the company to appoint a surveyor, who is made a standing and permanent officer of the association; and the sixth section provides "that it shall be the duty of the surveyor, within three days after application shall have been made, to examine, survey, and take the correct description and dimensions of all property to be insured by this association, and to set a valuation thereon, taking into consideration the exposure and liabilities of the premises to be insured to loss or damage by fire, and fix the per centage, as shall be hereinafter specified and determined in the conditions of insurance, and to furnish the secretary with an accurate copy of the same, within three days after the survey shall have been executed." There is nothing that I can discover in the constitution and by-laws of the association that imposes any duty upon the insured, but to make his application. All necessary and subsequent duties and examinations the company reserves and imposes on their own officers. When the association is satisfied, the policy issues, and the insured pays his money, and gives his bond, which becomes a part of the capital of the company. This insurance was on the personal effects of the plaintiffs below in their mill at Newportville. The offer was to prove, "that at the time...