Opinion
Decided December, 1890.
Under the act of 1885 (c. 93, s. 2), where there is a total loss of insured property, and over-insurance was not fraudulently obtained, a grossly excessive and false statement of value in the proof of loss does not prevent the recovery of "the amount expressed in the contract as the sum insured."
DEBT, upon an insurance policy of $800 on the plaintiff's cottage, which was entirely consumed by fire. The contract of insurance was made March 5, 1887. Verdict for the plaintiff for $800. The defendants excepted to the refusal of the court to instruct the jury that the plaintiff cannot recover if his statement of the value of the cottage in his proof of loss was false or grossly excessive.
W. B. Clement, J. F. Briggs, and O. E. Branch, for the plaintiff.
D. Cross and R. E. Walker, for the defendants.
"In any suit . . . against an insurance company to recover for a total loss sustained by fire, . . . the amount of damage shall be the amount expressed in the contract as the sum insured, and no other evidence shall be admitted on trial as to the value of the property insured. . . . Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the admission of testimony to prove over-insurance fraudulently obtained." Laws 1885, c. 93, s. 2. The loss in this case being total, and there being no "over-insurance fraudulently obtained," the plaintiff is entitled to "the amount expressed in the contract as the sum insured," and his statement of value in his proof of loss is not a defence.
Judgment on the verdict.
BLODGETT, J., did not sit: the others concurred.