Southern Mutual Insurance v. Kloeber

Citations

• 31 Va. 739

Syllabus

<p>1. If the application for a policy is made a part of the policy, and is a warranty and covers the applicant’s interest in and title to the property, and his answer to the question “ What is your title to or interest in the property to be insured ? ” is “ fee simple ”—Held : The fact that the wife of a former owner of the property who is still alive, has a contingent right of dower in it, does not affect the applicant’s interest in or title to the property. ISTor is it such an incumbrance as, not being mentioned in his answer, will be a breach of the warranty.</p> <p>2. If in such case the application is not a warranty, the failure to mention the existence of such a contingent rightof dower, is not such a misrepresentation as will avoid the policy.</p> <p>3. Where the ease is submitted to the court, and the evidence ■ as to the value of the property insured is conflicting, the appellate court cannot interfere with the judgment of the court below on the ground that the judgment is excessive.’</p>