Tiefenthal v. Citizens' Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 April 1884 |
| Citation | 53 Mich. 306,19 N.W. 9 |
| Parties | TIEFENTHAL v. CITIZENS' MUTUAL FIRE INS. CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Where the secretary of an insurance company fills out an application for insurance the company is presumed to waive any statements of fact that are not inserted in the application, and are not called for until after losses occur.
Incumbering insured property, without notice to the insurance company does not avoid the policy if neither the by-laws of the company nor the contract of insurance provides for such avoidance.
Chattel mortgages on growing crops are not to be regarded as increasing the hazard of insurance until the crops are harvested.
A provision in the by-laws of an insurance company that notices of other insurance, of increased hazard by mortgage, and of whatever else affects the rights of the parties, must be made to the secretary, and that his approval must be indorsed, is not necessarily to be construed as providing for the avoidance of the policy if such notice is not given.
False swearing by an insured person will not necessarily defeat his right to recover upon the policy if it was not done with fraudulent intent to obtain more pay than he was entitled to.
Error to Allegan.
Warner & Wilkes and W.B. Williams, for plaintiffs.
R.W Butterfield, for defendant and appellant.
This action is upon a policy of insurance issued by defendants August 27, 1878, to recover damages for loss by fire. The property was destroyed on the twenty-eighth day of August 1879, and consisted of barns, sheds, hay, grain, carriages harness, and farm implements claimed to be of the value of $2,200. Defendant contested the claim of the plaintiffs upon the following grounds: First, they falsely represented, in their application for insurance, that they owned the property insured; second, they falsely represented the amount of incumbrance thereon and upon the farm; third, they fraudulently concealed the facts in relation to the title to the property and incumbrances thereon, and upon which reliance was placed by defendants in making the policy; fourth, after the making of the policy, plaintiffs placed incumbrances upon the property without giving defendant notice; fifth, that part of the property, at the time of its destruction, had been seized and taken on execution, and they did not own any of the property at the time of the fire; sixth, that the fire occurred through the agency of plaintiffs, and was not accidental; seventh, that plaintiffs swore falsely in making the proofs of loss. The cause was tried by jury, and the plaintiff obtained judgment at the circuit for $1,936.44. Defendant brings error.
The first, fifth, ninth, sixteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth assignments of error were very properly abandoned on the argument, as we discover nothing in them of which the defendant can rightly complain; and we have been unable to discover any error in the admission or rejection of testimony by the circuit judge. The exceptions taken to the charge, therefore, only remain to be considered; and only such as were discussed by counsel for defendant do we deem it necessary to review.
The defendant's request stated in the tenth assignment of error was properly refused. There was really nothing to base it upon. No statement is contained in the application as to mortgages. The Nichols mortgage was the only one on the property at the time referred to. The others had all been paid. It appears...
To continue reading
Request your trial