Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 January 1953
• Docket Number: No. 13956.,13956.
• Citation: Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 1953 A.M.C. 284, 201 F.2d 833 (5th Cir. 1953)
• Parties: WILBURN BOAT CO. et al. v. FIREMAN'S FUND INS. CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

201 F.2d 833 (1953)

WILBURN BOAT CO. et al. v.FIREMAN'S FUND INS. CO.

No. 13956.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

January 29, 1953.

T. G. Schirmeyer, Houston, Tex., Hobert Price, Dallas, Tex., Alexander Gullett, Gullett & Gullett, Denison, Tex., for appellants.

Edward B. Hayes, Chicago, Ill., Joe A. Keith, Sherman, Tex., for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and BORAH and RIVES, Circuit Judges.

BORAH, Circuit Judge.

This action is based on a policy of marine insurance and was originally instituted in the state court from whence it was removed to the civil side of the docket in the Federal District Court at Sherman, Texas, on the grounds of diversity of citizenship.

On February 25, 1949, the appellants' motor vessel Wanderer, then insured under a full marine risk policy containing a fire clause, was destroyed by a fire of unknown origin while she lay afloat moored in Lake Texoma.The appellants filed a sworn statement in proof of loss, but the appellee insurance company refused to recognize the claim because of the alleged breach of certain conditions in the policy and in consequence this action was instituted.The policy provides that the insurance shall be void in case the interest insured shall be sold, assigned, transferred, or pledged without the previous consent in writing of the assurers, and further that it is warranted by the assured that the vessel shall be used solely for private pleasure purposes and shall not be hired or chartered unless permission is granted by indorsement on the policy.

It was stipulated by and between the parties that the Wanderer was sold and transferred by the appellantsJ. F. Wilburn, J. H. Wilburn, and L. G. Wilburn, to the appellantWilburn Boat Company, an Oklahoma corporation; that the vessel was not used solely for private pleasure purposes, but on the contrary was chartered and used for hire and that without the consent of the appellee the vessel was pledged by chattel mortgage on two occasions to the Citizens National Bank of Denison, Texas, and once to J. F. Wilburn and J. H. Wilburn jointly.The case was tried before the court without a jury, and after consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and the arguments of counselthe court found that a failure of performance of the terms of the contract was indisputably shown and that under the general admiralty law appellants were not entitled to recover.The controlling question presented upon this appeal is whether the trial judge rightly held that the policy is governed by the general admiralty law.

Appellants claim that the contract was entered into in Texas and is subject to the statutory insurance laws of that state which prohibit a forfeiture under the circumstances here presented.More specifically, their primary contentions are that the court committed error: (1) in denying recovery under the policy because the assured encumbered the vessel without the written consent of the insurer in that such holding runs counter to V.A.T.S. Insurance Code, art. 5.37¹ which declares an "encumbrance clause" to be null and void; (2) in holding that the assured was not entitled to recover because the vessel was hired or chartered without the written consent of the insurer in violation of the warranty of use for private pleasure purposes since there was no showing here that the use of the vessel had anything to do with the loss and absent such causal relationship, V.A.T.S. Insurance Code, art. 6.14,² prohibits a breach of the warranty from being interposed as a defense to a suit or to avoid the policy; (3) in failing to hold that they were entitled to recover under admiralty law and under the laws of Texas since the insurer knew or should have known that the Wanderer was being used commercially and has waived the defense based on the breach of the warranty of private use and is estopped from relying thereon.

These being the issues, our first inquiry is to determine whether or not the circumstances here presented warrant the application of the law of the sea.We are in no doubt that the contract was maritime in its nature.Indeed, appellants admit that the policy was one of marine insurance and it affirmatively appears from the policy provisions that it covered the operation of the vessel on navigable waters of the United States without as well as within the State of Texas.Further, the vessel's operations were not confined to Texas waters.The trial court found that the waters of Lake Texoma (an inland lake between Texas and Oklahoma) are part of the navigable waters of the United States.Appellants do not challenge this finding; there is evidence to support it; and we are satisfied that the finding is correct in fact and in law.Davis v. United States, 9 Cir., 185 F.2d 938.It has long been the settled doctrine that navigable lakes are public waters and are within the grant of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction in the Constitution of the United States.Insurance Company v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 1, 78 U.S. 1, 26, 20 L.Ed. 90;The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443, 53 U.S. 443, 13 L.Ed. 1058.And the courts have throughout the years recognized the learned and exhaustive opinion of Justice Story in the case of DeLovio v. Boit, Fed.Cas. No.3,776, 2 Gall. 398, affirming the admiralty jurisdiction over policies of marine insurance.Insurance Co. v. Dunham, supra;see alsoRobinson v. Home Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 73 F.2d 3, certiorari denied294 U.S. 712, 55 S.Ct. 508, 79 L.Ed. 1246;Aetna Ins. Co. v. Houston Oil & Transport Co., 5 Cir., 49 F.2d 121, certiorari denied284 U.S. 628, 52 S.Ct. 12, 76 L.Ed. 535.It follows that we are required to measure appellants' liability by the standards of the maritime law even though the proceeding was instituted in a common-law court.SeeCarlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255, 259, 42 S.Ct. 475, 66 L.Ed. 927;Chelentis v. Luckenbach S. S. Co., 247 U.S. 372, 384, 38 S.Ct. 501, 62 L.Ed. 1171.

Applying the rules of the numerous cases which have recognized the necessary dominance of admiralty principles in actions in vindication of rights arising under admiralty law, we hold that because of their admitted breaches of this contract assureds may not recover on it.Under general maritime law, contracts of insurance must be enforced as written and this court, in common with other courts, so holds.Home Ins. Co. v. Ciconett, 6 Cir., 179 F.2d 892, 894;Robinson v. Home Ins. Co., supra;Aetna Ins. Co. v. Houston Oil & Transport Co., supra.In Home Ins. Co. v. Ciconett, the court, in language which we approve, declared: "It is settled that a warranty in a contract of insurance must be literally complied with; that the only question in such cases is whether the thing warranted to be performed was or was not performed; and that a breach of the warranty releases the company from liability regardless of the fact that a compliance with the warranty would not have avoided the loss.Shamrock Towing Co. v. American Insurance Co., 2 Cir., 9 F.2d 57, 60;Fidelity-Phenix Ins. Co. v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 7 Cir., 12 F.2d 573;Whealton Packing Co. v. Aetna Insurance Co., 4 Cir., 185 F. 108;Aetna Insurance Co. v. Houston Oil & Transport Co., 5 Cir., 49 F.2d 121, 123-124.See alsoNorwich Union Indemnity Co. v. H. Kobacker & Sons Co., 6 Cir., 31 F.2d 411, 414;Imperial Fire Ins. Co. v. Coos County, 151 U.S. 452, 14 S.Ct. 379, 38 L.Ed. 231.The General Admiralty Law, as shown by the foregoing cases, is applicable.Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U.S. 239, 243-245, 63 S.Ct. 246, 87 L.Ed. 239."

This record fully supports the finding of the trial court that the warranty of private use was breached.Appellants do not deny the breach, but insist that the insurer waived this defense and is estopped from setting it up for the reason that the Wanderer was surveyed at insurer's request while the policy was in effect and appellee knew or should have known from a plain statement in the survey report that the vessel was being used commercially and failed to cancel the policy.But what appellants overlook, and what is fatal to their contention, is that the policy provided that the waiver of any provision or condition of the contract shall be written upon or attached thereto.Such a provision is reasonable, valid and binding on the assured.Adalian's, Inc. v. Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co. ofNew York, 5 Cir., 81 F.2d 226, 227;Aetna Ins. Co. v. Houston Oil & Transport Co., supra;Christian & Brough Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 5 F.2d 489.And, as was rightly found by the trial court, no permission was ever granted by indorsement on the policy for use other than for private pleasure purposes.We hold that the insurer is not barred from relying upon the appellants' breach of the "use" warranty.But even if the situation were otherwise, which it is not, appellants have admitted without qualification or defense that they breached the provision in the policy against selling, assigning, transferring, and pledging the vessel.We need not therefore labor the point, as one breach is sufficient.

There remains for...