Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Merchants' & Miners' Transp. Co.

Citations

• 179 F. 133
• 1910 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 276

Syllabus

<p>1. Shipping (§ 108*) — Marine Insurance — Construction of Contract.</p> <p>Where a carrier by water already held policies insuring it against loss through liability to cargo owners, a provision in a bill of lading, in consideration of a higher freight rate, that the cargo therein specified “is covered by marine insurance while on board, * * * under and in accordance with and subject to the conditions and limitations of policies of marine insurance held by” the carrier, must be construed as an obligation on the paxt of the caxriex to pay the shipper’s loss under the same contingencies as permitted it, through its reinsurance, to throw the loss on its own insurers.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Shipping, Dec. Dig. § 108.*]</p> <p>2. Insurance (§ 479*) — Marine Insurance — Insurance by Carrier — Construction of Contract.</p> <p>A shipowner carried five annual policies of insurance, aggregating $40,-000 covering its loss through liability to cargo owners, each having a rider providing that “the amount hereby insured is to contribute pro rata with the whole amount of insurance on the merchandise at risk.” The carrier contracted in a bill of lading issued to a shipper to insure the cargo covered thereby in terms which measured its liability by that of its own insurers. It also held an open policy, which by its terms covered only so much of any loss as was over $40,000. The shipper also held a policy on the property shipped, which contained provisions that it should be “null and voi<B to the extent of any amount paid by or recoverable from any carrier and/or bailee,” and that “this insurance shall not inure to the benefit of any lighterman or carrier whatsoever.” Held that, as applying to the contract of the carrier with the shipper made by the bilí of lading, the “whole amount of insurance on the merchandise at risk,” within the meaning of the riders, and which was to be taken into contribution, did not inclnde its open policy, which by its terms did not att