Southern Home Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Home Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 July 1894 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N v. HOME INS. CO. OF NEW ORLEANS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The so-called "New York Standard Mortgagee Clause" in a policy of fire insurance, which declares, in substance, that no act or neglect of the mortgagor shall defeat the insurance as to the interest of the mortgagee, does not dispense with making the proof of loss stipulated for in the policy, and within the time stipulated. If the mortgagee would not have the right in all cases to furnish the proof, he certainly would have it in a case in which the mortgagor refused; but in every case, unless waived by the underwriter, it must be furnished by one or the other.
Error from city court of Savannah; A. H. MacDonell, Judge.
Action by the Southern Home Building & Loan Association against the Home Insurance Company of New Orleans on a policy of insurance. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the declaration, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
R. L Sibley and G. B. Whatley, for plaintiff in error.
Denmark & Adams, for defendant in error.
The Southern Home Building & Loan Association sued the Home Insurance Company upon a policy of insurance issued by the defendant insuring Rosa Tutty upon certain property for one year from December 17, 1892, to an amount not exceeding $1,000, "loss, if any, payable to the Southern Home Building & Loan Association, as their interest may appear." Attached to the policy was what is called the "New York Standard Mortgagee Clause," in which it was stated that loss under the policy should be payable to the Southern Home Building & Loan Association, as mortgagee as its interest might appear, and that the insurance, as to the interest of the mortgagee only therein, should not be invalidated by any act or neglect of the mortgagor or owner of the property. The declaration alleged that while this policy was in force, on June 4, 1893, a fire occurred in the premises covered by the policy, by which the property insured was entirely destroyed; that immediately after the fire occurred notice was given the insurance company of the loss and afterwards, during August, the usual "proof of loss" was made out by Prioleau, adjuster of the defendant, showing the premises insured under the policy to be of the value of $1,948.80, but, failing to obtain the signature of the assured, Rosa Tutty, to the proof of loss, the defendant refused in consequence to pay over the loss to petitioner; that petitioner demanded payment of the loss as required by the policy, but the defendant refused to pay, etc. The defendant demurred to the declaration on the ground that it did not set forth any cause of action against defendant. In the argument upon the demurrer the...
To continue reading
Request your trial