Vette v. Clinton Fire Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 30 April 1887
• Citation: 30 F. 668
• Parties: VETTE v. CLINTON FIRE INS. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

30 F. 668

VETTE v. CLINTON FIRE INS. CO.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

April 30, 1887

Muench & Cline, for plaintiff.

Given Campbell, for defendant.

THAYER J., (orally.)

In this case the action is upon a policy of fire insurance, and the question to be decided arises upon a demurrer to the petition. The loss occurred on the twenty-third of February 1886. Proofs of loss were furnished on the twelfth of March 1886, and this suit was brought on the fourteenth of September, 1886. By the terms of the policy the loss is made payable '60 days after due notice and proofs of the same shall have been made by the assured, and received at the company's office, in accordance with the terms and provisions of the policy. ' The policy contained a further provision: 'That no suit or action against the company for recovery of any claim, by virtue of this policy shall be sustainable in any court of law or chancery until after an award shall have been obtained fixing the amount of such claim; nor unless such suit or action shall have been commenced within six months after the loss shall have occurred.'

If the provision last read is construed literally, and without reference to any other provisions of the policy, it would follow that this action was barred on the twenty-third of August, 1886; but, if it is construed in connection with other provisions, a different result may be attained. The clause in question is a special statute of limitations created by contract between the parties, and it has been held that such stipulations are valid. Riddlesbarger b. Hartford Ins. Co., 7 Wall. 389.

But when does the period of limitation begin to run, in view of other stipulations in the policy? It would seem reasonable to so construe the stipulation as to give the assured the full term of six months in which to sue, after a right to sue has accrued, and this, I think, was the intent of the parties to the contract. The loss is not payable until 60 days after proofs are furnished, and by a further provision the assured is deprived of his right to sue until an award has been made fixing the amount of the claim. In the mean time, according to defendant's theory, the limitation prescribed by the policy is running against the demand, and barring plaintiff of his remedy, although the time has not arrived when it is possible for him to maintain an action. Ordinarily, a statute of limitations does...