Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Krieg v. Phoenix Insurance Co.

Decided: May 14, 1936.

ANNA KRIEG, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT; ANNA KRIEG, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. THE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT



For the appellant, Edward Gaulkin.

For the respondents, Lum, Tamblyn & Fairlie.

Perskie

The opinion of the court was delivered by

PERSKIE, J. The questions requiring decision are, therefore, whether the renting of the house and furniture by the assured to Britto, constituted a change of possession prohibited by the alienation clause in the policies, or whether it was merely a permissible change of occupancy?

We have, what we believe to be, a well charted and defined course by which we are guided in the process of interpreting insurance contracts. It is based on certain established principles of law. The following are but a few of the many of these applicable principles:

1. The law will not make a better contract for the parties than they themselves have seen fit to enter into, or alter it for the benefit of one party and to the detriment of the other. Kupfersmith v. Delaware Insurance Co., 84 N.J.L. 271, 275; 86 A. 399; Marone v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., supra.

2. We enforce the contract in accordance with its plain provisions; as it is written. Precipio v. Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, 103 N.J.L. 589; 137 A. 549; Vozne v. Springfield Fire, &c., Insurance Co., 115 N.J.L. 449, 451; 180 A. 852.

3. We liberally construe policies of insurance to uphold the contract, and conditions contained in them which create forfeitures are construed most strongly against the insurer and will never be extended beyond the strict words of the policy. Baylor v. The State, &c., Assurance Co., 113 N.J.L. 389, 395; 174 A. 526.

4. We never seek for a construction of a forfeiture clause in a policy which will sustain it, if one which will defeat it is reasonably deducible from the terms and words used to express it. Rockmiss v. New Jersey Manufacturers, &c., Co., 112 N.J.L. 136, 140; 169 A. 663.

5. We consider the entire policy in all its parts to the end

that each clause shall have the same effect. Smith v. Fidelity and Deposit Co., 98 N.J.L. 534, 536; 120 A. 322.

6. We hold even in contracts of insurance written on our standard form of policy, that the maxim, Verba Chartarum accipiuntur contra proferentum, has no special application. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.