Woods v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania

Citations

• 82 Wash. 563
• 144 P. 650
• 1914 Wash. LEXIS 1616

Syllabus

<p>Insurance — Fire Insurance — Policy — Misrepresentations of Assured — Deceit—Evidence—Sufficiency. Findings that a fire insurance policy was obtained through deceit and misrepresentations of a material fact are sustained by the evidence, where it appears that the property insured was subject to a chattel mortgage, that in applying for the policy, the insured signed an application stating that there were no incumbrances, but had the policy issue payable to L. Co. as its interest may appear, representing to the agent that L. Co. was merely a general creditor.</p> <p>Same — Deceit—Notice of — Payable to Appointee. In such case, the fact that the policy was issued payable to L. Co. as its interest may appear, is not sufficient to notify the insurance company or put it on inquiry as to the fact that L. Co. was a mortgagee, since the expression merely means that L. Co. was made an appointee to receive the insurance, and does not point with conclusiveness that it was a mortgagee or had any insurable interest in the property.</p> <p>Same — Fire Insurance — Avoidance of Policy- — -“Deceit”—“Breach of Warranty” — Statutory Provisions. Under 3 Rem. & Bal. Code, § 6059-34, providing that no misrepresentations or warranty made in the negotiations of a contract of insurance shall be deemed material or avoid the policy, unless made with intent to deceive, and further providing that breach of warranty shall not avoid the policy unless the breacli exists at the time of the loss, a policy of insurance is avoided where it was obtained by false representations in the negotiations preceding and inducing its issuance, to the effect that the property was not incumbered by mortgage, made with intent to deceive; since it is not a case of breach of warranty within the latter part of said section.</p>