Skip to main content
· 4/15/1866

Schmidt v. Peoria Marine & Fire Insurance

Citations

  • 41 Ill. 295

Syllabus

<p>1. Insurance—whether words constitute a wa/rraniy as to future use of the property, or a mere affirmation of its present condition. A policy of insurance issued upon a tannery contained these words: “ No fire in or about said building, except one under kettle, securely imbedded in masonry (used for heating water), and made perfectly secure against accidents.” These words do not constitute a warranty on the part of the assured that there shall be no fire in the building during the continuance of the policy except the one under the kettle, but merely affirm what the condition of the property was at the time the policy issued.</p> <p>2. So the use of other fires in the building during the term of insurance, will not, under such a clause, avoid the policy.</p> <p>3. Same — effect of an express provision against an increase of risk subsequent to the issuing of the policy. Where it is provided in a policy of insurance, that, “if, after insurance is effected, the risk be increased by any means, or occupied in any way so as to render the risk more hazardous than at the time of insuring, such insurance shall be void and of none effect,” these words are construed to mean that the policy shall become inoperative only while the increased risk shall be in existence, and, when it terminates, the liability of the company will recommence.</p> <p>4 Same — evidence — what is the real question in case of loss, under such a clause. Where a loss has occurred, and the insurer invokes such a clause for his protection, alleging an increase of risk, as in the use of more fires in the building, it is not competent to prove that the risk is increased by the increase of the number of fires in a building; but the real question is, was the risk to the particular building, at the time it was burned, greater in consequence of the presence therein of stoves, in which fires had been used at a time more or less remote from the time of the loss, and which were not in the building at the time the po

Judges: Lawrence

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.