Sugg And Wife,v,hartford Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 October 1887
• Citation: 98 N.C. 143,3 S.E. 732
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Sugg and Wife v Hartford Ins. Co.

3 S.E. 732

98 N.C. 143

Sugg and WifevHartford Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 31, 1887.

1. Insurance—Forfeiture—Breach—Bona Fides.

Plaintiffs took out a policy of insurance which contained a clause rendering the policy void if plaintiffs should effect any subsequent insurance without the consent of the company. In forgetfulness, and without intent to defraud the defendant company, plaintiffs, without knowledge or consent of the defendant, afterwards took out two other policies on the same property. Held, that the good faith of the plaintiffs could not prevent the defendant from having the full benefit of the forfeiture.

2. Same—Forfeiture—Other Insurance.

Plaintiffs sued defendant for a loss under a policy which read: " Or if there shall be any other insurance, whether valid or otherwise, on the property insured, or any part thereof, at the time this policy is issued, or at any time during its contin-uance, without the consent of this company written hereon * * * this policy shall be void." Afterwards plaintiffs eifected two other policies of insurance, and each contained a similar clause to the one above set forth. Held, that the subsequent insurance, whether "valid or otherwise, " rendered the policy sued upon void.¹

Appeal from superior court, Pitt county; J. H. Merrimon, Judge.

W. B. Rodman, Jr., for plaintiffs. Geo. H. Brown and Jno. H. Small, for defendant.

Merrimon, J. The plaintiffs sue to recover the money alleged to be due to the feme plaintiff upon the policy of insurance of the defendant made to her, speeilied in the complaint, which contains, among other provisions, conditions, and stipulations, a clause in these words: "Or if there shall be any other insurance, whether valid or otherwise, on the property insured, or any part thereof, at the time this policy is issued, or at any time during its continuance, without (he consent of this company written hereon, or if the risk be increased by any means within the control of the assured, this policy shall be void, " etc.

By constnt of the parties the court found the facts, the material part of which findings necessary to be set forth here, is as follows: It is admitted by plaintiffs that subsequent to the issuing of the policy sued on, to-wit, on May 17, 1886 plaintiff Mittie E. Sugg took out policies of insurance in the Pamlico Banking & Insurance Company, in the sum of $1,500, and in the Georgia Home Insurance Company in the sum of 61, 500, and of these two later policies $1,000 each was placed on the two-story brick house described in complaint, and $500 each covering the piano, the household furniture, silver, glass, crockery, and wearing apparel. Defendant's policy covers $1,200 on said building, $650 on said household and kitchen furniture above mentioned, and $150 on piano above mentioned, and contains three-fourths value clause. Plaintiffs further admit that defendant company, or its agents, had no notice of, and did not consent to, the said subsequent insurance above specified, on the same property. The defendant admits that said subsequent insurance was taken out in forgetfillness of the existence of the policy sued upon, and with no intent to defraud defendant company. Upon the facts found, the court was of the opinion that the plaintiffs could not recover, and gave judgment for the defendant. The plaintiffs, having excepted, appealed to this court.

The contract of insurance embodied and set forth in the policy sued upon must receive a reasonable and just interpretation; and the intention of the parties to it, thus ascertained, must prevail. Contracts of this character, although in some respects peculiar, are governed by the same principles that govern other contracts, and are not different from others as to the rules of interpretation applicable in varying aspects of them. The purpose of courts in construing them is to ascertain what the parties mean and intend; what they have respectively agreed to do or not to do; how they have agreed to be affected, to be bound or not to be bound. It is not the province of the court to amend, modify, or make a contract for the parties; or to reform their contract so as to render it reasonable, expedient, and just; or, in the absence of fraud, accident, or mutual mistake, to relieve them from misadventure, inadvertence, hard bargains, disadvantage, loss, and damage, occasioned by lack of foresight, forgetfulness, misfortune, and negligence. Contracts are serious tilings, and parties capable of contracting must be held by the courts, when properly called upon, to a due observance of their contract, and those of insurance as well as others, however unfortunate, disadvantageous, or disastrous the results flowing from them may be to one side or the other. All...