Stone v. Howard Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 April 1891
• Citation: 153 Mass. 475,27 N.E. 6
• Parties: STONE SAME v. HOWARD INS. CO. SAME v. GRANITE STATE FIRE INS. CO. SAME v. FIREMAN'S INS. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

153 Mass. 475

27 N.E. 6

STONE SAME v. HOWARD INS. CO. SAME v. GRANITE STATE FIRE INS. CO. SAME v. FIREMAN'S INS. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

April 3, 1891

COUNSEL

F.A. Gaskill and Kent & Dewey, for plaintiff.

F.P Goulding, for defendants.

OPINION

C ALLEN, J.

The plaintiff, at different dates, took out three policies of insurance from three different insurance companies. So far as is made to appear to us, neither policy contained any reference to either of the other policies, and neither company knew of any other insurance except that made by its own policy. The first policy insured the plaintiff upon "two-story and basement frame building, occupied by assured as a steam-power boot and shoe factory, situate on east side of Winthrop street, Holliston." The second policy was upon "machines, boilers, engines shafting, pulleys, belts, and supplies for same, tools, dies, lasts, patterns, cases, implements, screws, forms, tacks, shop and office furniture, fixtures, and iron safe, contained in two-story frame building and basement, occupied by the assured as a steam-power boot and shoe factory," situated as above described. The third policy was upon "boots and shoes, manufactured and in process of manufacture, and stock and material, contained in a two-story and basement frame building, occupied by the assured as a steam-power boot and shoe factory," situated as above described. Each policy was in the form known as the "Massachusetts Standard Policy," and contained the prescribed clause respecting the circumstances under which the policy should become void, the parts material to the present inquiry being as follows: "This policy shall be void *** if the premises hereby insured shall become vacant by the removal of the owner or occupant, and so remain vacant for more than thirty days, without such assent, or if it be a manufacturing establishment, running in whole or in part extra time, *** or if such establishment shall cease operation for more than thirty days without permission in writing indorsed hereon." The defense in each case was that the property insured was a manufacturing establishment, or was in and part of a manufacturing establishment, and that the same ceased operation for more than thirty days without such permission. Omitting all unessential words the provision of each policy was: "This policy shall be void, if the premises hereby insured be a manufacturing establishment, if such establishment shall cease operation for more than thirty days without permission in writing indorsed hereon." It is obvious from the description in each policy that it was well understood by the parties that the plaintiff maintained a manufacturing establishment, and that the building insured by the first policy, and the machines, etc., insured by the second policy, constituted parts thereof. In respect to the property insured by the third policy, in the opinion of a majority of the court it cannot be held to constitute a part of the manufacturing establishment, or to operate or be operated as such, or to cease operation, for the following reasons, stated by Mr. Justice WILLIAM ALLEN: This property differs from the factory or the manufacturing establishment which operates upon them, as a thing operated upon differs from that which operates, or the tool from the material it works upon. A manufacturing establishment is an establishment for manufacturing raw material,--that is, for operating upon material; and the idea of it excludes the material upon which it operates. Much less can the idea of the material include the manufacturing which operates upon it. The policy reads that the policy shall be void, "if the premises hereby insured *** be a manufacturing establishment, *** if such establishment shall cease operation." It cannot be construed as if it read, "if the premises shall be a manufacturing establishment, or goods manufactured or in process of manufacture, stock, or materials in a manufacturing establishment, and such establishment shall cease operation." The same form of policy is prescribed for insurance upon all kinds of property; and there would naturally be inserted general provisions which are applicable to some kinds of property, and not to other kinds. The provision in regard to the removal of property insured is evidently intended for movable...