U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hecht
Decision Date | 17 October 1935 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 339 |
Parties | UNITED STATES FIRE INS. CO. et al. v. HECHT. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 29, 1935
Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; Paul Speake, Judge.
Action on a policy of fire insurance by Hugo Hecht against the United States Fire Insurance Company of New York and the National Liberty Insurance Company of America. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Transferred from Court of Appeals.
Affirmed.
Foreclosure or mortgage in ignorance of fact that house had burned held not to preclude mortgagee from recovering on fire policy with New York standard mortgagee clause, where foreclosure sale was for cash, no deed or memorandum of sale was made purchaser declined to pay, and foreclosure was treated as abandoned, since mortgagee is entitled to hold title as mortgagee against any bidder until bid is paid in manner prescribed by power, or until mortgagee becomes bound by agreement with successful bidder to execute conveyance and to become accountable to mortgagor for amount of bid.
See also, United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Smith, 164 So 70.
Count 4, claiming the sum of $627.47, of the defendants, avers that on February 5, 1932, defendant United States Fire Insurance Company, issued a fire insurance policy in the sum of $1,000 insuring the house described, located in the city of Gadsden, Etowah county, against loss by fire; that Thomas Smith was named as insured in said policy; that there was attached to said policy a New York Standard Mortgage clause (made Exhibit A to the complaint), payable to plaintiff as his interest may appear; that the house described in the policy, and covered by said policy and said mortgage clause, was totally destroyed by fire November 10, 1932, and that at the time of the fire and some time prior thereto plaintiff held a first mortgage covering said house, at which time there was due on said mortgage the sum of $627.47; that on the date of aforesaid fire said policy and mortgage clause were in full force and effect. It is further averred that defendant National Liberty Insurance Company reinsured the property or policy in question prior to the date of said fire, the reinsurance agreement being made Exhibit B to the complaint.
The instruments exhibited are as follows:
The plea in abatement sets forth stipulations of the policy for proof of loss to be made by insured, and avers that neither insured (mortgagor) not plaintiff (mortgagee) before commencement of suit filed a proof of loss as required by the policy, wherefore suit is prematurely brought.
Coleman, Spain, Stewart & Davies and Frank M. Young, all of Birmingham, and O.R. Hood, of Gadsden, for appellants.
Inzer, Davis & Martin, of Gadsden, for appellee.
The suit is upon a fire insurance policy issued by defendant United States Fire Insurance Company to Thomas Smith, and included a reinsurance contract entered into by said company with defendant National Liberty Insurance Company of America. The plaintiff held a mortgage on the insured property, and the policy contained what is called a New York Standard or Union Standard, mortgagee clause, which is made exhibit to count 4, upon which for the plaintiff the cause was tried. This clause appears in the report of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Smith
... ... appeal. Transferred from Court of Appeals ... Affirmed ... See, ... also, United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Hecht, 164 So ... Replications ... setting up waiver of policy requirement for proof of loss by ... denial of liability held not demurrable ... (N.S.) 317, Ann.Cas.1914A, 1141. While the ... contract of reinsurance in this case bears some similarity to ... the contract before us, yet there is quite a difference in ... the language of the two contracts, and also in the meaning of ... the same, as well as a distinction in ... ...
-
Fontenot v. Marquette Cas. Co.
...The other cases cited by Veron are not determinative of the issue for which it argues they stand.Alabama: United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Hecht, 231 Ala. 256, 164 So. 65 (1935); although not cited, see the companion case, United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Smith, 231 Ala. 169, 164 So. 70, 103 A.......
-
Pyun v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co.
...block of policies instead of merely agreeing to indemnify the reinsured. Ussery, 373 So.2d at 829; see also United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Hecht, 231 Ala. 256, 164 So. 65 (1935) (holding that the reinsurer agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions of the several policies and to relieve......
-
Aetna Ins. Co. v. Baldwin County Bldg. & Loan Ass'n
... ... Hare, Judge ... Action ... on a policy of fire insurance by the Baldwin County Building ... & Loan Association against the AEtna Insurance ... It is therefore ... distinguished from U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hecht ... (Ala.Sup.) 164 So. 65 ... On the ... other hand, the statement is made that the ... ...