Peet v. Dakota Fire & Marine Ins.

Citations

• 1 S.D. 462
• 47 N.W. 532
• 1891 S.D. LEXIS 49

Syllabus

<p>1. If the proof of a fact is so preponderating that a verdict against it would be set aside by the court as contrary .to evidei.ce, then it is the duty of the court to direct a verdict in favor of the party having this preponderance.</p> <p>2. When there are defects in the proofs of loss, whether formal, substantial, or, indeed, in any respect, which could have been supplied if specific objections had been made thereto by the underwriters, a failure on their part to object to the proofs on that ground, or to point out the specific defect, or call for information omitted within a reasonable time, is considered a waiver, however defective, informal, or insufficient such proofs may be.</p> <p>3. If it is essential for holds the property issuing the policy,</p> <p>an underwriter to know by what title the insured insured, that inquiry should be made at the time of and not deferred until after a loss has occurred.</p> <p>4. When ownership of the property is one of the issues for determination, if there is any evidence that is disputed or contradictory, it is the province of the jury, and not the court, to settle that fact.</p> <p>5. Whenever there has been a change of occupancy or of business, or the erection of additional building adjoining or near by the insured property, the question whether there has been a material increase in the risk, or not, is a question of fact, to be determined by the jury; but whether an increase of risk avoids the liability of the insurer is a question of law for the court.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the court.</p>