Page images

wheat, $3,000 on corn, and $2,000 on oats, or a total insurance of $7,500. Two other companies, however, the Ætna and Home, insured $5,000 and $6,000 respectively on "grain." The value of the wheat, corn, and oats was respectively $8,000, $7,000, and $10,000; and the loss on these three items in the order given was $3,000, $4,000, and $8,000. Now what should be the method of apportioning this loss among the several policies, and how much should be paid under each?

In answering this question, Mr. Daniels makes the following introductory statement:

"You may not fully realize the importance of the proposition you have submitted to me for my consideration. It involves some of the most intricate questions we find in the adjustment of losses, and for many years such cases as you have submitted have been the source of serious anxiety in the loss departments of the various insurance companies, and have been the basis for a large number of contests before the courts. The insurance men of the past, and of today, who were, and are, because of their interest and work in the adjustment of loss claims, thoroughly posted, have not agreed and do not agree what each company should pay in such a case as you have submitted. Similar cases have received the attention of the courts during the past fifty years, and it is safe to say that the decisions of the courts as to how the losses in your case should be apportioned among the companies are not in harmony."

In discussing the solution of the aforementioned problem, Mr. Daniels devotes a volume to the application of the many rules of apportionment used in different localities, and shows that each will result in different amounts being paid under the several policies involved. Space limits forbid a detailed presentation of the many rules discussed. The following, however, may be mentioned as illustrative of some of the methods used:

Contribution according to value: "Compound insurance shall contribute with specific in proportion as the value of the specific property bears to the value of all the property covered by the compound policy." (Daniels, p. 7. This rule was previously described as the Reading Rule.)

Contribution according to the order of description of the several items of property: "The compound insurance contributes from its full amount with the specific, to pay the loss on the first item in the general form on which there is a loss. The remainder of the compound insurance, after deducting amount of loss paid, contributes with the specific insurance on the next item in the general form on which there is a loss. This plan to be followed until the whole loss is paid or the compound insurance is exhausted." (Daniels, p. 23.)

Contribution according to the order of amount of loss on the various items: "The compound insurance contributes from its full amount with the specific to pay the loss on the item covered by specific insurance on which there is the largest loss. The remainder of compound insurance after deducting amount of loss paid contributes with the specific insurance on the item having the second largest loss. This plan to be followed until the whole loss is paid or the compound insurance is exhausted." (Daniels, p.


Contribution according to the respective losses on the various items: "The principle governing all apportionments of non-concurrent policies is that general and specific insurance must be regarded as coinsurances; and general insurance must float over and contribute to loss on all subjects under its protection, in the proportions of the respective losses thereon, until the assured is indemnified, or the policy exhausted." (Daniels, p. 53.)



Twofold Classification of Provisions in this Respect. -The provisions of the fire insurance policy fall into two general classes, separated by the fact of the loss. While all provisions of the policy are to be considerel as binding upon the parties to the contract, they are not, for purposes of legal interpretation, treated as equally important. In fact, nearly one-fourth of the standard fire policy consists of provisions which concern matters that are required to be done by the insured after the main fact a loss-has taken place. In the main the courts have regarded these provisions more leniently than those which concern matters required to be done before a loss has occurred. Where doubt as to the meaning exists, the provisions are usually construed favorably to the insured, and the courts are also more easily satisfied as to the existence of a waiver. The provisions which apply after a loss has taken place may be grouped under three distinct heads, viz.: (1) those defining "notice of loss" and "proof of loss"; (2) those providing for the exhibition of records and the examination of the insured; and (3) those relating to the appraisal of the loss in case of disagreement.

Notice of Loss and Proofs of Loss.--The provisions of the standard policy relating to the giving of notice of the loss and the furnishing of the proof are the following:

The insured shall give immediate notice, in writing, to this company, of any loss or damage, protect the property

from further damage, forthwith separate the damaged and undamaged personal property, put it in the best possible order, furnish a complete inventory of the destroyed, damaged and undamaged property, stating the quantity and cost of each article and the amount claimed thereon; and, the insured shall, within sixty days after the fire, unless such time is extended in writing by this Company, render to this Company a proof of loss, signed and sworn to by the insured, stating the knowledge and belief of the insured as to the following: the time and origin of the fire, the interest of the insured and of all others in the property, the cash value of each item thereof and the amount of loss or damage thereto, all incumbrances thereon, all other contracts of insurance, whether valid or not, covering any of said property, any changes in the title, use, occupation, location, possession, or exposures of said property since the issuing of this policy, by whom and for what purpose any building herein described and the several parts thereof were occupied at the time of fire; and shall furnish a copy of all the descriptions and schedules in all policies and if required, verified plans and specifications of any building, fixtures or machinery destroyed or damaged.

Almost without exception, it is a requirement of insurance policies that, when a loss occurs, the insured shall give "immediate" notice in writing. Some policies specify a definite time within which notice must be given, as five days or ten days, and in such cases, if the insured neglects to comply with the terms of the condition, he will be doing so at his peril. The courts have recognized the reasonableness of requiring the insured to give "immediate" notice of a loss to the insurer. Prompt notice enables the company to take effective measures toward lessening the loss by properly protecting against further injury such merchandise or other property as may have been partly destroyed or left exposed. Immediate notice

of the loss will also enable the company to learn the essential facts which surround the origin of the fire, thus preventing the removal or concealment of evidence which would tend to show fraud.

[ocr errors]

The expression "immediate notice of loss," however, has been given a reasonable construction by the courts. In many cases where notice of loss could not be furnished at once, owing to good reasons, the courts have protected the insured. Thus, in the case of Kentzler vs. American Mutual Accident Association (88 Wis., 589), the court said: "A contract should not be construed so as to forfeit or render nugatory the rights of one of the parties to it, unless the language employed imperatively requires such construction. In other words, an interpretation which gives effect is preferred to one which makes void. 'Immediately' cannot be given the meaning of instantly, but to make good the deeds and interests of parties, it shall be construed 'such convenient time as is reasonably requisite for doing the thing."" A great many other cases have been rendered to the same effect, it being held in some instances that thirty days' delay was not too long because of a good excuse, whereas in other cases a delay of six or seven days was regarded as too long because no good reason for the delay could be offered.

Also with respect to the furnishing of proofs of loss the courts have upheld the provisions of the policy, where they could easily be complied with; but where this could not be done, have refused to construe the same strictly. Proofs of loss are necessary to enable the company to determine the extent of the loss, and to ascertain whether the insured complied with the terms of the policy. Yet there are many circumstances which the courts have accepted as sufficient to excuse the policyholder from submitting the proofs of loss in the form or within the time required by the policy. Nor do the courts regard proofs.

« EelmineJätka »