Watertown Fire Ins. Co. v. Grover & Baker Sewing Mach. Co.

• Decision Date: 10 June 1879
• Citation: 1 N.W. 961,41 Mich. 131
• Parties: THE WATERTOWN FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. THE GROVER & BAKER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

1 N.W. 961

41 Mich. 131

THE WATERTOWN FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. THE GROVER & BAKER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 10, 1879

A policy of insurance provided that in case of loss immediate notice should be given, stating number of the policy and name of agent. It was payable to a mortgagee to the extent of his interest. Notice of loss was given by the mortgagee, and one who was assignee of the owner's rights subsequent to the fire, to the local agent who issued the policy, and was brought to the knowledge of the general agent of the company. Held, sufficient. Where all the interest in a claim for loss on the policy was assigned to plaintiff before suit, held that he might maintain an action thereon in his own name. Execution of an invalid mortgage, as one upon the homestead in which the wife does not join, is not such creation of an incumbrance upon, or transfer of, insured premises as will vitiate a policy of insurance containing the general provision against the transfer of the property without notice to the company.

MARSTON, J.

Counsel for plaintiff in error very properly arranged the questions raised in this case under three heads, and we will follow that arrangement.

I. The notice. The provision in the policy requiring notice to be given is as follows: "In case of loss the assured shall give immediate notice, stating the number of the policy and the name of the agent." It was not claimed that any notice whatever was given by Colby, the owner of the premises, and the person to whom the policy was issued. The policy was made payable, in case of loss, to Charles Jagger, as his mortgage interest should appear. James L. Dobbins also had a mortgage on the premises, which will be referred to hereafter, and after the fire an assignment was made to him by Colby of all right, title and interest in and to this policy of insurance over and above Jagger's claims. This assignment was intended by the parties to speak as of a time before the fire. Notice was given by both Jagger and Dobbins to the local agent of the company who issued the policy, which was brought home to the knowledge of, at least the general agent or adjuster of the company.

We are of opinion that the notice was sufficient, within the letter and spirit of the policy, when given by these parties. No matter what the intention of the parties may have been as to the time the assignment to Dobbins, made after the fire should be considered as of an earlier date, it could only take effect and operate as at the time of the delivery after the fire, and as an assignment of a money demand against the company. Colby, thereupon, having no longer any interest in the policy, or the claim thereunder, except as might be applied in payment of his debts, could not, by a neglect or refusal to notify the company of a loss, deprive the mortgagee or the...