214 Mich. 540 | Mich. | 1921
The plaintiff, on July 21, 1917, sold a Jordan touring car to Louis J. Schuster under a conditional sale contract. On the same day he obtained a policy insuring him against loss by fire, theft and transportation from the defendant company to the amount of $1,800. An indorsement thereon reads:
“It is understood that the automobile described in this policy has been sold by the said Charles E. Baker to the said Louis J. Schuster, under a conditional sale . contract, a copy of which shall be furnished to this company by the said vendor on demand.
“Loss, subject to all the terms and conditions of this policy, shall be payable to the said vendor and the said vendee as their respective interests may appear.”
On July 23, 1917, Schuster, without knowledge of this policy, obtained one in the Westchester Insurance Company, covering the same risk, in the sum of $1,700. This policy contained a warranty that the title to the car was in Schuster and that it was not mortgaged or otherwise incumbered.
The automobile was destroyed by fire on November 12, 1917. Schuster was at that time owing plaintiff $648.72 on the purchase price. The plaintiff notified the defendant’s agent of the fire and furnished proofs of loss as required by the policy. The defendant declining to pay, Schuster assigned his interest in the policy to plaintiff, who brought suit thereon. Schuster had theretofore, and before he knew of plaintiff's insurance, made claim under his policy, but such claim was apparently abandoned and the policy returned to the company.
The case was tried before the court without a jury.
“That at the time Schuster went to get his insurance in the Westchester. Fire Insurance Company, he told the agent, Goldberg, that he had purchased the car on time which was giving him notice that he was not the sole, and unconditional owner of the car.”
To this and the court’s conclusion as matter of law that plaintiff could recover but the $648.72 yet due him from Schuster the plaintiff prepared amendments and filed exceptions to the refusal to grant same.
The claims of the plaintiff for reversal may be thus stated:
(1) The Westchester policy was void because Schuster was not the sole and unconditional owner of the car.
(2) Even if valid, the insurance thereunder would not attach, by reason of Schuster’s interest being covered by the policy sued on.
“The testimony is undisputed that the application for this insurance was verbal, and that Mr. Craig was not inquired of as to the state of his title. There is no claim of any fraud practiced by him, or any deceit on his part. Under the holdings of this court,*544 he was not required, under these circumstances, to show the exact condition of his title.”
Many cases are cited in support of this holding.
“If at the time a loss occurs there be any other insurance covering against the risks assumed by this policy which would attach if this insurance had not been effected.”
We find no error in the conclusion of the trial judge that, as Schuster’s interest was fully protected in the policy issued to him and in force at the time of the fire, the policy issued to plaintiff and here sued on was void to the extent of Schuster’s interest therein.