Windey v. North Star Farmers Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 26 May 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 35099,35099 |
| Citation | 231 Minn. 279,43 N.W.2d 99 |
| Parties | WINDEY v. NORTH STAR FARMERS MUT. INS. CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A change of title or interest was not effected by a contract for sale of insured property entered into prior to loss between named persons as agents of the owners, one of whom was an infant, as vendors, and plaintiff, as vendee, subject to the conditions precedent (a) that the vendors obtain deeds signed by the adult owners, and (b) that they obtain an order of license from the probate court authorizing a sale of the infant's interest, and providing that upon failure to comply with such conditions the sale should be null and void.
2. A provision in a contract for the sale of insured property that if loss or damage occurred while the contract was in force the proceeds of the insurance should be applied on the purchase price did not constitute an assignment of the policy within the meaning of a policy provision that the policy should become void if assigned by the insured without the insurer's consent.
3. Obtainign by the Vendee of other insurance on the property covered by the policy did not void the policy under a provision thereof that it should become void if the Insured should procure such additional insurance without the insurer's consent.
4. Performance of the contract after loss did not constitute a change of title or interest which related back so as to void the policy prior to the occurrence of the loss.
E. V. Molle, Marshall, A. R. English, Tracy, for appellant.
Severson & Severson, Canby, for respondent.
Action by plaintiff as the insured's assignee to recover on a tornado policy. Decision was for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
The questions for decision are:
(1) Whether a change of Title or Interest was effected by a contract for sale of the insured property entered into prior to loss between named persons as agents of the owners, one of whom was an infant, as vendors, and plaintiff, as vendee, subject to the conditions precedent (a) that the vendors obtain deeds signed by the adult owners, and (b) that they obtain an order of license from the probate court authorizing a sale of the infant's interest, and providing that upon failure to comply with such conditions the sale should be null and void;
(2) Whether a provision in the contract for the sale of insured property that if loss or damage occurred while the contract was in force the proceeds of the insurance should be applied on the purchase price constituted an assignment of the policy within the meaning of a policy provision that the policy should become void if assigned by the insured without the insurer's consent;
(3) Whether obtaining by the Vendee of other insurance on the property covered by the policy voided the policy under a provision thereof that it should become void if the Insured should procure such additional insurance without the insurer's consent; and
(4) Whether, if the first question is answered in the negative, performance of the contract after loss constituted a change of title or interest which related back so as to void the policy prior to the occurrence of the loss.
On May 23, 1946, defendant issued to the heirs at law of Siver Rosten a policy insuring them against loss or damage to a certain farm building by windstorm. The policy was to run for five years with the premium payable annually on the anniversary of the date thereof with a 60-day grace period. Within such period, the premium due on May 23, 1947, was tendered to defendant. The policy contained provisions that it should become void if (1) any change other than by death of the insured should take place in the title or interest of the insured property without the consent of the insurer; (2) the policy should be assigned without the written consent of the insurer endorsed thereon; and (3) the 'insured' should have any other insurance on the property covered by the policy without the insurer's consent.
On February 10, 1947, while the policy was in force, a contract for deed was executed by Orval Rosten, one of the adult owners, and C. V. Coon, the husband of another of such owners, as agents for all the owners, one of whom was a minor, as vendors, and plaintiff, as vendee, by the terms of which the vendors agreed to sell and convey the land to the vendee for a purchase price of $13,200, of which $1,000 was to be paid in cash and the balance of which was to be paid as soon as the vendors were able to furnish an abstract showing merchantable title and a deed could be procured from the 'owners,' which was stated to be about May 1, 1947, subject to the conditions that the contract should become null and void if (1) deeds from the owners could not be obtained or (2) authorization by the probate court for sale of the infant's interest could not be obtained in guardianship proceedings to be commenced. The contract also provided that the vendee should be entitled to possession as of March 1, 1947, and that the rent to be received from the tenant thereon should belong to the vendee if the contract was fully performed and to the vendors if it was not. It also contained other provisions which we do not deem pertinent here.
On May 27, 1947, the vendee procured $300 other insurance covering the same risk as that insured against by de...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allison v. State
...of relation back is used "to preserve rights as of the earlier date, or otherwise to avoid injustice." Windey v. N. Star Farmers Mut. Ins. , 231 Minn. 279, 43 N.W.2d 99, 102 (1950). Here, the application of the relation-back doctrine ensures that the right to effective assistance of counsel......
-
Massachusetts Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co. v. Town of Danvers
...therefore, is applied only with the view of accomplishing justice or effectuating public policy. See Windey v. North Star Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 231 Minn. 279, 284, 43 N.W.2d 99 (1950); Nantista v. 130 West 86 Apartments Corp., 130 Misc.2d 635, 640, 496 N.Y.S.2d 663 (1985); Nodland v. Plain......
-
In re Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis
...respect to a post-loss assignment, thereby making a post-loss assignment valid and enforceable. Windey v. North Star Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 231 Minn. 279, 283, 43 N.W.2d 99, 101–02 (1950). Allowing an insured to assign its right to the proceeds of an insurance policy after a loss has occurr......
-
Gopher Oil Co. v. American Hardware Mut. Ins. Co.
...Corp. v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 100 F.2d 441, 444 (8th Cir.1939) (making same distinction); Windey v. North Star Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 231 Minn. 279, 283, 43 N.W.2d 99, 102 (1950) ("Assignment, after loss, * * * does not constitute an assignment of the policy, but only of a claim or r......