Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

not enough to amount to an increase of hazard within the principles above discussed. Under this clause, it makes no difference whether the risk was increased or not. The only question is whether the work continues for a longer time than that allowed by the policy (19).

§ 67. Interest of insured. A further proviso in the New York Standard policy makes the policy void, "if the interest of the insured be other than sole and unconditional ownership" (20). In other policies, the phrase is "entire, sole, and unconditional ownership", or "sole and absolute ownership". The courts in construing these phrases have not attempted to give them a technical meaning. They have said that the purpose of the clause was to make it sure that the insured should be the person upon whom the loss would fall if the buildings were burned. Thus, if A owned a house which B has in writing agreed to buy, since A can compel B to buy, even though the property should be destroyed by fire, B is clearly the real owner, although the legal title is still in A; and it has been held that, under these circumstances, B can satisfy the requirement as to sole and unconditional ownership (21), while A cannot (22). For the same reason, a mortgagor since the loss would fall on him and not the mortgagee, can satisfy this requirement as to ownership (23); and for the same reason this requirement is not affected by the existence of an outstanding lease nor by an outstanding

(19)

Insurance Co. v. Coos, 151 U. S. 452. (20) App. E, 1. 47.

(21) Dupreau v. Insurance Co., 76 Mich. 615.
(22) Insurance Co. v. Huron Co., 31 Mich. 346.
(23) Dolliver v. Insurance Co., 128 Mass. 315.

lien (24). For precisely the converse reasons, the requirement cannot be satisfied by a mortgagee (25) nor a lessee, nor a lienor.

If the ownership is split up among several persons, no one of them can satisfy this requirement. Thus, where property is owned by a husband and wife and a policy is taken out by either alone, it is bad (26). If the insured has only a life interest, this clause is not satisfied (27). So, if the interest is limited in any other way, as when property is given to the insured to hold until a particular date. Following the underlying idea above mentioned, however, of seeing who would be the loser if the property were destroyed, it has been held that the condition of the policy is not broken if the outstanding interest is extremely small, as a one-seventh interest; or if, although the property is held jointly, the insured, because of improvements put on that part of the land which he has insured, would be entitled to have it set off to him separately (28).

§ 68. Change of interest, title, or possession. The language of the New York Standard policy is that it is void if "any change other than by the death of the insured takes place in the interest, title, or possession of the subject of insurance" (29). There are two other somewhat similar clauses that are sometimes found in other policies. One of them provides for the voiding of the policy if there

(24) Wooddy v. Insurance Co., 31 Gratt. (Va.) 362.
(25) Waller v. Assurance Co., 10 Fed. 232.

(26) Schroedel v. Insurance Co., 158 Pa. 459.
(27) Collins v. Insurance Co., 44 Minn. 440.
(28) Insurance Co. v. Wigginton, 89 Ky. 330.
(29) App. E, 1. 54.

shall be "any alienation, sale, or transfer," and the other form is, "sale, transfer, or change in title or possession." It is now well settled that the first of these two last mentioned clauses has no application, so long as any interest, however slight, remains in the insured. Thus, where an individual so insured takes in a partner (30), or where partners are insured and sell out to one of them (31), this clause is not broken. Neither is it broken where the insured sells his entire interest, but at the same time takes a mortgage back (32). It is also well settled that a transfer by death does not come within this proviso (33).

§ 69. Change of title. If the policy provides against "change of title", it is none the less broken although the insured keeps throughout an insurable interest in himself, if in fact he actually parts with his legal title. Thus, a sale by the insured with an immediate mortgage back violates this clause (34). But the legal title must actually be changed. It is not sufficient that there is an agreement to transfer it. Thus, it is well settled that an agreement in writing to sell the property does not constitute a change of title, even though the contract is capable of being specifically enforced (35). So, if the deed by which the property is purported to be conveyed is void, as for usury, there is no change of title within the meaning of this proviso. Whether partnership changes of the kind discussed above violate this clause is a question on which the

(30) Blackwell v. Insurance Co., 48 Ohio St. 533.
(31) Hoffman v. Insurance Co., 32 N. Y. 405.
(32) Hitchcock v. Insurance Co., 26 N. Y. 68.

(33) Pfister v. Gerurg, 122 Ind. 567.
(34) Savage v. Insurance Co., 52 N. Y. 502.

(35) Smith v. Insurance Co., 91 Cal. 323.

courts are not agreed. It is generally held that where one person is insured and then takes in others, there is a change of title. The converse state of affairs in some jurisdictions is held not to be change of title, since no new person is introduced into relation with the company (36). The validity of this distinction is perhaps somewhat doubtful.

§ 70. Change of interest. How much the phrase "change of interest" adds to the limitation above discussed is not clear. Some courts have said that this phrase is synonymous with "change of title". One distinction that has been made by some courts is in the case where the insured has made an enforceable agreement to sell his property. This has been said to be a change of interest, although it is not a change of title (37). This, however, has also been denied by other courts.

§ 71. Mortgage or lien. It is well settled that a mortgage or lien of any kind is not in violation of any of the clauses above discussed. To prevent the giving of a mortgage, a special clause covering such a transaction is frequently inserted in the policy. For the same reason, a foreclosure or tax sale, where the title is not completely transferred until the expiration of the time for redemption, is not generally held to be within the language above discussed (38).

§ 72. Keeping or using dangerous articles. Almost all policies forbid, in one form or another, the keeping or using of specific articles on the premises insured. The

(36)

Hathaway v. Insurance Co., 64 Iowa, 229. (37) Gibb v. Insurance Co., 59 Minn. 267. (38) Wood v. Insurance Co., 149 N. Y. 382.

New York Standard policy provides that it shall be void "if (any usage or custom of trade or manufacture to the contrary notwithstanding) there be kept, used or allowed on the above described premises" certain specified articles (39). The language of the policies in this regard has been carefully limited by the courts. As to the words "store" or "keep", which are frequently used in this proviso, it is to be noted that the same limitations apply as to the clause relating to the increase of hazard. That is to say, there must be a certain permanency about the transaction to bring it within the proviso. Thus, where the insured took out a policy on his building and the policy forbade the "storing or keeping" of flax, and the building had been previously used for carding flax, and a certain small amount had been inadvertently left in the attic, the court held that this did not violate the requirements of the policy, saying that the language of the policy "in this connection seems to demand a continued occupation of the whole or a part of the premises insured in pursuance of the design for that specific purpose. There is a manifest distinction between a deposit of hazardous goods and a deposit for the purpose of keeping them." A further distinction that has been made between "storing" and "keeping" is that the former means keeping for the purpose of being taken away in substantially the same condition and bulk as that in which it was brought. "Keeping" applies to a retention with no such idea of removal (40). The word "using" carries with it the same idea of continuity or permanency. Some

(39) App. E, 1. 61.

(40) Insurance Co. v. Langdon, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 623.

« AnteriorContinuar »