(4). Custom and course of dealing as to payment of premiums.
Waiver of forfeiture for nonpayment of one premium note does not waive
or estop forfeiture for nonpayment of second. Robnett v. Cotton States
Life Ins. Co. (Ark.)

(5). Guaranty and indemnity insurance.
Liability insurer, by making agreed defense, does not lose right to assert loss
was not covered by policy. Ford Hospital v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.
(Neb.)

§ 389. ISSUANCE AND DELIVERY OF POLICY WITHOUT OBJECTION.
(1). Breaches existing at time of issuance or delivery in general.
Insurer, which failed to object, and plaintiff insured believing he was meet-
ing requirements, held to have waived noncompliance with record war-
ranty clause, being estopped to set up same as defense to suit after loss.
Camden Fire Ins. Ass'n v. Yarborough (Tex.)

(5). Subsequent breaks in contiuation of existing conditions.
Insurer held not to have waived breach of warranty that certificate of Ves-
sel Fire Register had been obtained. O'Connor Trans. Co,, Inc., v. Glens
Falls Ins. Co. (N. Y.)......

268

502

81

443

(6.) Knowledge of intent to violate conditions.
Concurrent insurance is no defense where agent has knowledge of it. Gould
v. Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. (Wis.)

338

§ 390. FAILURE TO ASSERT FORFEITURE OR TO CANCEL OR RE-
SCIND POLICY.

Voluntary application of reserve of paid-up insurance does not waive for-
feiture. Elms v. Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co. (Mo.)...

§ 392.

........

284

DEMAND, ACCEPTANCE, OR RETENTION OF PREMIUMS OR

ASSESSMENTS.

(1). In general.

Company cannot retain benefit of conduct of agent who procured lapsing of
policy by fraud and false representations and cannot be relieved from
consequences of such fraudulent means by which such lapsing was ob-
tained. Combs . Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. (N. C.).....
Fire insurer, which issued policy providing it should be void unless otherwise
agreed in writing if insured was not sole and unconditional owner, held
not estopped to set up invalidity of policy under such provision. Kava-
naugh v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, Pa. (Cal.).
Where company accepted and retained premium not paid when required,
with full knowledge of plaintiff's sickness at time, it waived forfeiture for
delay in payment, unless payment was accepted under provision for re-
instatement without liability for existing sickness. Wiser V. Central
Business Men's Ass'n (Mo.)

If, following default in payment of premium, insurer's agent accepted pre-
mium conditionally until health certificate upon which to base reinstate-
ment could be obtained, in case insurer should demand it and insurer did
demand it, and died before reinstatement, there could be no recovery,
but if agent accepted premium and informed insured that no health cer-
tificate would be necessary, insurer would be estopped to deny liability;
agent's neglect to obtain certificate being negligence of insurer. Hoyle
v. Grange Life Assur. Ass'n (Mich.)..
Insurer, by accepting premiums and requiring identification in addition to
proofs of death after knowledge of false representations held estopped to
claim forfeiture by such representations. Reid v. Brotherhood of Rail-
road Trainmen (Mo.)
Conditions of policies held waived where company had knowledge of avoid-
ance of such conditions but retained premiums and left policies outstand-
ing. Where insurer has full knowledge of all facts in relation to sub-
ject-matter of contract, and continues to accept all its benefits. it can-
not reject its burdens. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Dallavo (U. S.)..

In action against insurer for wrongful cancellation in which it was conclus-
ively shown that insurer had canceled policy because of nonpayment of
premium when due, but had retained premium on receipt thereof, insured
was entitled to directed verdict. Zallee v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N. Y.
(Mo.)

(2). Condition as to title.

Giving notice of gale in proceedings to foreclose lien held not to avoid policy.
Stebbins v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. (Wash.).

(7).

Acceptance by mutual hail insurance company of premiums for several years
in arrears on suspended policy and reinstating it, subsequently returning
premium for another year, held not to constitute waiver of provision so
as to render defendant liable for loss incurred while policy was suspend-
ed.-Party paying up past-due installments on suspended policy held not
entitled to collect loss during suspension. Brockway v. Mich. Mut. Hail

Ins. Co. (Mich.)

42

58

123

180

410

561

532

225

678

(8).

Demand and acceptance after injury or death of person
insured.

Where insurer received payments in ignorance of fact that insured had died,
insurer had option to return premiums so received and declare policy void
or it could waive such right and retain premiums thereby electing to
keep policies in force. Kozloski v. Prudential Ins. Co of America (N. J.)

(9). Demand or acceptance on condition.

Retention by insurer of premium was not waiver of right to demand evidence
of continued insurability. Gould v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S.
(N. Y.)

(10). Retention and enforcement of note.
Mere retention of note by company after its maturity, with no affirmative
acts on part of company signifying intention to enforce payment does
not result in either waiver or estoppel that will prevent company from
insisting upon forfeiture.-Insurer held not estopped from declaring for-
feiture of policy for nonpayment of premium note. Novak v. La Fayette
Life Ins. Co., La Fayette. Ind. (Neb.)

(11). Offer to return.

Facts held insufficient to show waiver of provision for delivery of policy and
payment of premiums while insured was alive. Cure v. Midland Life
Ins. Co. (Kan.)

......

S 393. CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT OF POLICY.
Mortgaging of goods is no defense after consent to assignment of policies
has been given with knowledge of mortgage. Gould v. Pennsylvania Fire
Ins. Co. (Wis.)

3 396.

REQUIRING, ACCEPTING, OR RETAINING PROOFS OF LOSS.
(1.) In general.

Clause as to entry into military service construed: consent to enter into
military service in time of war waived by writing for proofs of loss.
Bowman v. Surety Fund Life Ins. Co. (Minn.)....

(5). Requiring additional proofs.

Insurer, by accepting premiums and requiring identification in addition to
proofs of death after knowledge of false representations held estopped to
claim forfeiture by such representations. Reid v. Brotherhood of Rail-
road Trainmen (Mo.)

400.

PROVISIONS OF POLICY AGAINST FORFEITURE.
Incontestable clause is valid and bars fraud as defense.-Incontestable clause
in statutory language is not construed against insurer.--Death of insured
before expiration of time within which insurance company can contest
policy does not operate to extend time for contest beyond that so fixed.
-Policy can be contested within clause making it incontestable after one
year only by proceedings in court to which insurer and insured or his
representatives or beneficiaries are parties.-Company can contest policy
in equity after death of insured to avoid incontestable clause.-Incon-
testable clause does not run pending appointment of administrator to
whom policy was payable.-Company held to have lost right to contest
policy by delay after appointment of administrator. Ramsay v. Old
Colony Life Ins. Co. (Ill.)

38

413

545

278

338

182

410

155

Parties to contract could not by contract put something into policy repug-
nant to statute requiring policies to be made incontestable not later than
two years from date except for nonpayment of premiums, and thus de-
stroy benefit to insured which statute was designed to guarantee, so that
attempted reservation by insurer of right to interpose fraud by way of
defense to suit to enforce payment of policy after it had been issued
more than two years was void. American Nat. Ins. Co. v. Tabor (Tex.) 195
Where policy incontestable after one year, held that there being no default
in payment of premium, there is no defense to action for recovery of
amount specified in policy. Plotner v. Northwestern Nat, Life Ins. Co.
(N. D.)

416

"Peril of the sea" need not be extraordinary, in sense of being catastrophic,
and severe storms, rough seas, and even fogs may be comprised in perils
of the sea. Etna Ins. Co. v. Sacramento-Stockton S. S. Co. (U, S.)...... 467
(B) INSURANCE OF PROPERTY AND TITLES.

Insurance against loss by fire includes all loss from explosions which are
the direct result of an antecedent fire upon insured premises.-Insurer

against fire is not liable for loss from explosion caused by antecedent fire
occurring on premises other than those insured. Liverpool & London &
Globe Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Currie (Tex.)....

§ 424. ACCIDENT.

Damage to automobile rolling down embankment after overturning held not
"caused solely by collision with another object." Moblad v. Western In-
demnity Co. of Dallas, Tex. (Cal.)

687

616

Policy against theft required pieces to be delivered to carrier against receipt.
Herts v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. (N. Y.)...

Against robbery held not to cover taking in clerk's presence, unless he had
actual knowledge of taking; "felonious taking". Van Keuren v. Trav-
elers' Indemnity Co. (Ga.)

§

426%. DEFECTS IN OR OBJECTIONS TO TITLE INSURED.
Where company guaranteed title subject to validity of judgment affecting
title which it stated was good in opinion of its attorneys, it was respon-
sible only for truth of latter statement-abstract maker was not liable
for omission of details specified, Whitaker v. Title Ins. & Trust Co.
(Cal.)

(C)

GUARANTY AND INDEMNITY INSURANCE.

472

618

495

136

435. LIABILITY INCURRED FOR PERSONAL INJURY OR LOSS OF
LIFE.
Policy required by statute from auto bus owner limited to car described and
insurer cannot be held liable for injury caused by different car operated
by same owner, Downs v. Georgia Casualty Co. (N. J.)
Where employee was injured while on mission in connection with repairing
boat, it was not within "vessel hazard" clause-employee in designated
class held covered where premium was determined on estimated compen-
sation of employees. Employers' Liab. Assur. Corp. v. American Packing
Co. (Miss.)
Child, born in hospital but returned to mother, is "patient", not mere licen-
see-injury to child through negligence of nurse held "hospital treat-
ment"-nurse allowing child's hand to touch hot appliance makes "mis-
take" within policy. Ford Hospital v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. (Neb.).. 502
Policy of automobile insurance held policy of indemnity, and not liablity
policy, so that judgment creditor could not proceed against insurer.
Luger v. Windell. Same v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. (Wash.)...... 629
438. CAUSE OF DEATH IN GENERAL.

M

Insurer has right to select risks it is willing to assume, and there is no pub-
lic policy against contract exempting company in advance from liability
for death of insured while in military or naval service of government.
Marks v. Supreme Tribe of Ben Hur (Ky.)

252

283

Death while on furlough does not arise from risk of military service. At-
kinson v. Indiana Nat. Life Ins. Co. (Ind.)..

Validity of suicide clause is governed by law where parties resided and policy
was delivered. Parker v. Ætna Life Ins. Co. (Mo.)...

381

§

446.

EFFECT OF INSANITY.

In order to be suicide, death must have been designedly inflicted upon him-
self by deceased. Parker v. Ætna Life Ins. Co. (Mo.)....

381

(E)

ACCIDENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE.

§ 451. RISKS AND EXCEPTIONS IN POLICY IN GENERAL.

(1). In general.

Policy held not to provide indemnity for death when struck by train at
crossing. Williamson v. Great Eastern Casualty Co. (Ind.)....
Courts cannot enforce indemnity for losses from injuries resulting from risks
excepted in policy.-Airplane flying, whether insured operates machine
or not, is "participating in aeronautics". Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Peake
(Fla.)

344

594

} 453. RISKS OF OCCUPATION OR EMPLOYMENT.
One injured while employed as baker's helper may recover as "baker" un-
der policy. Futopolus v. Midland Casualty Co. (Wis.)........
455. EXTERNAL, VIOLENT AND ACCIDENTAL MEANS OF INJURY,
Accidental bursting of blood vessel while shaking furnace held to entitle ben-
eficiary to recover under accident policy. Husbands v. Ind. Travelers'
Acc. Ass'n (Ind.)

Death intentionally caused by another is accidental if insured had no reason
to anticipate it. Employers' Indemnity Corp. v. Grant (U. S.).......
Death from ptomaine poisoning held within accident policy. O'Connor v. Co-
lumbian Nat. Life Ins. Co. (Mo.)......
Suicide while insane is no defense-where sane insured intentionally com-
mitted suicide, death is not accidental. Trembley v. Fidelity & Casualty
Co. (Mo.)

...

Septic poisoning from hypodermic needle held accidental. Townsend v. Com-
mercial Trav. Mut. Acc. Ass'n (N. Y.)..
Time of infection is immaterial where death was produced by blood poi-
soning from accident. Hornby v. State Life Ins. Co. (Neb.)...
Beneficiary may recover for death of insured by blood poisoning resulting
from accidental wound. Rorabaugh V. Great Eastern Casualty Co.
(Wash.)

Sunstroke from direct rays of sun, is popularly understood as accident, and
is covered by policy insuring against bodily injuries by accidental means.
Death from sunstroke is covered by policy insuring against bodily in-
jury by "accidental means", though accidental death not covered.-
Beneficiary may recover for insured's death from sunstoke in desert due
to miscalculation of distance to be traveled. Beneficiary may recover
for insured mining engineer's death from sunstroke in desert.-Negli-
gence of insured, who died from sunstoke in desert, in not taking more
water or adopting additional precautionary measures, is not defense —
Voluntary exposure to danger is no defense. Richards v. Standard Acc.
Ins. Co. (Utah.)

S 461.

VOLUNTARY OR UNNECESSARY EXPOSURE TO DANGER.
(1). In general

.......

Septic poisoning from hypodermic_needle held not result of negligence or
voluntary exposure to danger. Townsend v. Commercial Trav. Mut. Acc.
Ass'n (N. Y.)

.......

97

475

485

490

598

610

712

490

That deceased in possession unlawfully of hypodermic needle, infected him-
self, was no defense as result of violation of law. Townsend v. Com-
mercial Trav. Mut. Acc. Ass'n (N. Y.).........

490

465. SUICIDE OR SELF-INFLICTED INJURIES.
Suicide while insane is death by "accidental means". Weber v. Interstate
Business Men's Acc. Ass'n (N. D.)

466. PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY OR DEATH.
Disease resulting from accidental injury held within policy. Anderson v.
Mutual Benefit H. & Acc. Ass'n (Mo.)..

238

Blood poisoning resulting in wound will be considered as effect of injury and
not as additional or other cause aside from accident, and consequent
death is held to be result of accident exclusively and independently of
other causes. Hornby v. State Life Ins. Co. (Neb.)

467. LIMITATIONS AS TO TIME OF DEATH OR DISABILITY CAUSED
BY ACCIDENT.

There was continuous "disability" from date of accident where insured be-
came sick from blood poisoning 12 hours after accidentally cutting finger.
Rorabaugh v. Great Eastern Casualty Co. (Wash.).

598

XIII. Extent of Loss and Liability of Insurer.

Insertion of words "valued at sum insured" in contract of marine insurance
held not to change normal character of policy as contract of indemnity
under which insured in case of loss is entitled to recover only actual
value of the property lost. J. Aron & Co. v. U. S. Lloyds (U. S.)....... 690
REPAIRS

483.
484.
Failure of insured to make repairs to injured barge held no defense.
V. American Equitable Assur. Co. (N. Y.)
Provision limiting loss to cost of repairs did not bar insured's recovery,
where no repairs were made. Walker v. Liverpool & London & Globe
Ins. Co. Same v. Western Assur. Co. of Toronto (N. Y.)

O'Boyle

341

586

EXPENDITURES.

487.

489. UNDER SUE AND LABOR CLAUSE OF POLICY.
Parties suing on policy for marine insurance held entitled to expenses for de-
fending condemnation in British prize court. Guinness v. Phoenix Assur.
Co., Ltd., of London (N. Y.).

93

Evidence as to materials held inadmissible as against claim of total loss un-
der tornado insurance on barn blown down. Stubbins v. State Farmers'
Mut. Ins. Co. (Mo.)

Me 498. VALUE OF PROPERTY DESTROYED.

Agreed valuation held basis of settlement, in action on policy containing co-
insurance clause, for partial loss.
Bice V.
Home Ins. Co. Same v. Indust.

Fire Ins. Co. (Del.)..

........

S 504. EFFECT OF OTHER INSURANCE.

Coinsurance clause,added as rider to new standard form of policy is valid.
Durham v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co. of City of New York (N. Y.)..

(C) GUARANTY AND INDEMNITY INSURANCE.

§ 513. EXPENDITURES.

68

425

79

138

Insurer held liable for expenses of defending insured against attachment.
Green River Distilling Co. v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. (N. Y.).. 512
S 514. DAMAGES INCURRED OR PAID.
Agreement to indemnify against loss by employee's injury or death covers
payment by another for such loss for which insured is ultimately liable.
-Surety company which furnished its own attorney to represent it and
its policy holders in two damage suits should not be required to pay ad-
ditional attorney fees in defense of such suits. Harndon v. Southern
Surety Co. (Mo.)
Where bonds were lost in mail, insured bank had right of action against in-
surer under indemnity policy transferable to plaintiff. St. Paul Fire &
Marine Ins. Co. v. Charlton (Tex.)
359
Policy covering loss from liability is contract of indemnity-agreement to
defend suits and reservation of right to settle held not waiver of provi-
sion against liability except for logs paid by assured. Glatz v. Kroeger
Bros. (Gen'l Acc., Fire & Life Assur. Corp., Garnishee) (Wis.).....
Where judgment for loss from negligence was paid by note, insurer cannot
defeat recovery on ground judgment was not paid in money. Ford Hos-
pital v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. (Neb..)

Insurer's refusal to defend action against insured held not to create greater
liability than amount stated in policy.-Measure of liability for insur-
ar's breach of contract to defend suits against insured is (1) amount
stated as for injuries to third persons; and (2); all necessary costs and
expenses incurred by insured in defending action.-Insuer held not enti-
tled to reduction of liability for cost and expense-Contract to defend
is indivisible and extends to whole case, regardless of amount involved
or whether it exceeds or does not exceed liability of company. Mann-
heimer Bros. v. Kansas Casualty & Surety Co. (Minn.)
Where policy expressly imposed on insurer duty of defending actions against
insured, exercise of this power was not dependent on insured's further
assent or ratification.--Failure of liability insurer to defend action un-
til after vacation of judgment held not to estop it as against plaintiff.
Insurer held not estopped by conduct from defending suit against in-
sured.-Liability insurer, undertaking defense after vacation of judg-
ment, is bound to take litigation as it finds it. Rollins v. Bay View Auto

Parts Co. (Mass.)

Liability insurer for injuries may participate in defense of action.

(D)

514

602

624

619

Glatz v.
Kroeger Bros. (Gen'l Acc., Fire & Life Assur. Corp., Garnishee) (Wis.),. 514

LIFE INSURANCE.

§ 515. AMOUNT PAYABLE ON DEATH.

Provision limiting liability in case of death of insured while engaged in mili-
tary or naval service or in consequence thereof is valid and binding.-
Provision limiting liability in case of death of insurer whlie engaged in
military or naval service or in consequence thereof applies whether in-
sured entered service voluntarily or was inducted under Selective Service
Act. Nowlan v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America (W. Va.).
Clause limiting liability to one-half stated amount of insurance in event that
insured should die from certain stated diseases within one year is pro-
hibited. First Texas State Ins. Co. v. Smalley (Tex.)...

517.

AMOUNT OF INCONTESTABLE OR PAID-UP POLICY.
Where policy did not understate age of insured, there was nothing in its
terms to authorize reduction in amount payable to beneficiary. Ameri-
can Nat. Ins. Co. v. Tabor (Tex.)

56

557

195