Suit tо recover for loss under a policy of fire insurance. Action tried to a jury, and verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs for $1,576.34 and costs; A motion for a new trial, based upon a statement of the case with exceptions, and containing all the evidence, was denied by the -trial court. , This appeal is from the judgment and the order overruling, the motion for a nеw-trial.
■No question is raised on this appeal as to the sufficiency of the complaint. The answer admits the copartnership of'the plaintiffs and the issuance of the policy,- and denies ea'ch and every other allegation in the complaint, except as thereinafter admitted.
The ¡plaintiffs in their reply admit that at the time of the issuance of this policy they held another policy in the Mitchell Company, as alleged in the answer. The reply further alleges: That the defendant, in its policy issued to plaintiffs, did, by a partly written and partly printed indorsement, duly signed by its secretary, and attached to said policy when issued, consent, permit, and gra:>t this plaintiff .permission and the right to carry other insurance upon their stock of merchandise. That said indorsement, jn the form of a rider clause, was pasted-on said policy and formed a part thereof, and was .in the following form-: “South Dakota Standard Percentage Value Clause, -If at the time of the. fire the whole amoun,t of insurance on the property covered by this policy
Numerous assignments of error are presented in the abstract, but we shall notice only those discussed in appellant’s brief and shall consider all others abandoned. Edgemont Imp. Co. v. Tubbs Sheep Co. et al., 22 S. D. 142,
The following facts,- briefly stated, appeared by undisputed evidence: Immediately after the fire, the plaintiffs notified defendant by letter of the loss and asked thеm .to send an adjuster. The company replied by letter that a man would be sent. • Mr. Eruden-feld, secretary of the defendant company, came shortly after the fire; did not do anything, but. asked to look at the books, and they were shown him. He thereupon said to plaintiffs that they had carried other insurance without the defendant’s knowledge, that defendant was nоt responsible, and that, if plaintiffs. were about to start a lawsuit, they had. better arbitrate, but - did not offer to settle the loss by arbitration; said -he was sorry plaintiffs did not have any claim against the company. Defendant never se ■ lected any one to arbitrate. Erudenfeld, when called as a witness for the defendant, was -not asked concerning the convеrsation above stated. Defendant offered no evidence as to the value of the property upon the trial. At the close of plaintiffs’ evidence, defendant moved for a direction of a verdict on various grounds, which motion was denied, and was renewed at the close -qf ,-the trial, but need not be noticed at this time, as the question raised .upon said motion will be hereinafter referred to so far- as discussed in appellant’s brief. The secretary, E. S. Erudenfeld, was
"Sec. 3. All losses shall be adjusted by duly authorized persons, except when such adjuster and claimant fail to agree, in wh,ich event the loss shall be arbitrated, as provided by law.
“Sec. 4. No action at law or otherwise shall be commenced or maintained in any court to recover loss or damage until thе amount of such loss or damage shall have been determined by the adjusters of this association and the insured, or until the same shall be fixed by arbitration. * * *”
This offer was objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, the objection sustained, and exception entered.’ This ruling is assigned as error. A large number of decisions are cited in defendаnt’s brief holding .the doctrine that a mémber of a mutual insurance company is conclusively held to know the contents of ,tfie by-laws of such company and is bound by clauses therein contained providing for arbitration in case of' loss, and that no action can be maintained _ until such arbitration has been had and the amount of loss thereby ascertained. We need not discuss the authorities cited, for the -reason that this provision for arbitration, contained in. the by-laws offered in evidence, had been waived by the failure of defendant to take the initiative step by appointing an arbitrator and requesting insured to do likewise. The by-laws therefore became wholly immaterial to any issue in the case, and thе ruling of the trial court excluding them was not error. Nerger v. Equitable Fire Ass’n, 20 S. D. 419,
It is next contended that the ruling of the trial court excluding the application for insurance, upon which the policy issued, was error, because such application disclosed a question and an answer of plaintiffs as to the then existing insurance on ,the property, 'which was a wаrranty, and which answer was admitted to be false, and that this would render the policy null and void. That ,such would be the'effect of this evidence must be conceded, unless the percentage valué clause hereinbefore quoted, which was attached
The principal and legitimate purpose of such а warranty in the application and forfeiture clause in the policy of insurance is to protect 'the insurer against the hazard of overinsurance, and is regarded as a just and reasonable provision for that purpose; but such conditions, like others working forfeitures, will be strictly construed. May on Ins. § 367. Two clauses or methods of accomplishing this рurpose are found discussed in the text-books on insurance and in the decisions of courts: First, a provision may be inserted in the policy for an absolute forfeiture of the insured of all rights under the policy, If other insurance exists on the property, and such insurance is not disclosed in the application or assented to by the insurer, or if the insured shall take out additional insurance without the assent' of the insurer; second, a provision may be inserted in or added to the policy, limiting the liability of the insurer .to a percentage of the value of the property less than its real value, and providing that such reduced valuation of property in case of loss shall be ratably divided between the severаl insurers, thus - limiting the recovery of the insured in case of loss to an amount less than the real value of the-property insured. By either method the moral hazard of the insurer is lessened or eliminated. While adapted to the same end, the two
In the case at bar the policy itself contained a provision for absolute forfeiture in case of other insurance not consented to; but the provision requiring assent to additional insurance implies, we think, that the company would be willing to protect itself against overinsurance by adopting the other method indicated above. The record discloses that the defendant company, at the time of issuing this policy, without any request by the insured, added to the policy this rider clause and by express .words made it a part of the contract. In Palatine Ins. Co. v. Ewing,
In this istate of the évidence, the court used the following language in instructing the jury, which was excepted to: “In the view, the court has taken of this case, the court instructs you that .this policy, was binding between these parties. * * * There is only one thing for you to determine — the amount the plaintiffs are entitled to recover under this policy.” And “if you find that the defendant is liablе for any sum — and the instruction is that they are.” The defendant company in their answer admit the issuance of the policy, and the undisputed evidence, as well as the implied admissions of the .answer, establish the loss by fire of the property insured. There whs absolutely no issue fbr the jury upon either of these facts. The evidence tending to .avoid the policy having bеen properly excluded by the court, the giving of the in
We find no error in the record which w’ould warrant a reversal, and the judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.