Hare v. Headley

19 Citing cases

  1. Clark v. Casselman

    177 Cal. 82 (Cal. 1917)   Cited 1 times

    It is apparent, therefore, that the judgment must be reversed because of the erroneous finding discussed above. As was held in the case of Hare v. Headley, 54 N.J. Eq. 545, [35 A. 445], forfeiture of the rights of the insured by reason of his failure to give notice or proofs of loss as required by the contract cannot be considered waived by the payment of loss to the mortgagee. And it was also held in that case that the insurer might be entitled to subrogation to the mortgagee's rights under a mortgage clause, although the contract between the Insurance Company and the mortgagee was an independent agreement and not, as in this case, part of the original policy.

  2. Tindall v. Continental Insurance Co.

    252 App. Div. 47 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)   Cited 4 times

    The claim to entitle it [the insurer] to an assignment and subrogation must be made in good faith and be based upon a state of facts which under the contract of insurance would entitle it to exemption from liability. Other jurisdictions have placed a similar construction upon identical provisions for subrogation. ( Kerber v. Girling, 254 Ill. App. 1; Hare v. Headley, 54 N.J. Eq. 545; 35 A. 445; Loewenstein v. Queen Insurance Co., 227 Mo. 100; 127 S.W. 72; Bull v. North British Canadian Investment Co., 15 Ont. App. 421.) In none of these cases, nor in any case that I have been able to discover, has it been held that the limitation, within which an action could be brought upon the policy, was not (in the absence of waiver or estoppel) an absolute defense to a claim by the mortgagor.

  3. Imperial Assur. Co. v. Livingston

    49 F.2d 745 (8th Cir. 1931)   Cited 35 times

    As we hold, however, that the policies even as to the trustee are valid, there is no right of subrogation and no right of assignment involved in these cases. Sun Ins. Office of London v. Heiderer, 44 Colo. 293, 99 P. 39; Hare v. Headley, 54 N.J. Eq. 545, 35 A. 445; Traders' Ins. Co. v. Race, 142 Ill. 338, 31 N.E. 392. The judgment in each of these cases should be, and is, affirmed.

  4. Royal Ins. Co. v. Bailey

    35 F.2d 916 (6th Cir. 1929)   Cited 3 times

    It is therefore generally held that outstanding mortgages and liens do not constitute a breach of the condition in a fire insurance policy that the interest of the insured be that of sole and unconditional ownership. Dolliver v. St. Joseph F. M. Ins. Co., 128 Mass. 315, 35 Am. Rep. 378; Union Assur. Soc. v. Nalls, 101 Va. 613, 44 S.E. 896, 99 Am. St. Rep. 923; Hare v. Headley, 54 N.J. Eq. 545, 35 A. 445; Petello v. Teutonia Fire Ins. Co., 89 Conn. 175, 93 A. 137, L.R.A. 1915D, 812; Citizens' Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Conowingo Bridge Co., 113 Md. 430, 77 A. 378; Lancashire Ins. Co. v. Monroe, Jefferson Co., 101 Ky. 12, 39 S.W. 434. The same reasoning is applicable under the terms of this policy to the condition against change in title or interest of the insured.

  5. Commercial Stand. Ins. Co. of Ft. Worth, Tex. v. Hitson

    73 N.M. 328 (N.M. 1963)   Cited 9 times
    Interpreting a standard mortgage clause, the court stated "[a]s we view this language, it clearly states that where the payment has been made to the mortgagee, but the insurance coverage had been voided for some reason, there was present a right in the insurance companies to recover back from the `mortgagor or owner'"

    The payment, by them, does not operate to reduce or extinguish the mortgage debt or discharge the mortgage, but to satisfy, pro tanto, the mortgagee's claim and assign it to the insurers, leaving it in full force as against the mortgagor and those claiming under him, with no right, on their part, to claim a reduction of the debt by the payment to the mortgagee. Allen v. Watertown Fire Ins. Co., 132 Mass. 480, 483; Badger v. Platts, 68 N.H. 222, 224, 44 A. 296; Walker v. Queen Ins. Co., supra [ 136 S.C. 144, 134 S.E. 263, 52 A.L.R. 259]; Hare v. Headley, 54 N.J. Eq. 545, 558, 35 A. 445; Cooley's Briefs on Law of Insurance (2d Ed.) Vol. 7, p. 6281, Vol. 3, p. 2390, and cases cited. To hold that under such circumstances, the insurance must be credited upon the mortgage debt would enable the mortgagor to get, indirectly, the benefit of insurance, the right to enforce which, directly and affirmatively, had been lost by breach of conditions of the policy.

  6. Ford v. American Home Fire Ins. Co.

    5 So. 2d 416 (Miss. 1942)   Cited 5 times

    Mrs. Ford's interest in the property was sole and unconditional ownership within the meaning of the policy. Westchester Fire Insurance Co. v. Green, 223 Ala. 121, 134 So. 881; McClellan v. Greenwich Insurance Co., 107 La. 124, 31 So. 691; Doliver v. St. Joseph F. M. Insurance Co., 128 Mass. 312, 35 Am. Rep. 378; Caplis v. American Insurance Co., 60 Minn. 376, 62 N.W. 440; Hare v. Headley, 54 N.J. Eq. 545, 35 A. 443; Steinmeyer v. Steinmeyer, 64 S.C. 413, 42 S.E. 184; Union Assurance Society v. Nalls, 101 Va. 613, 44 S.E. 896; Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Meschendorf, 14 Ky. Law Rep. 757; Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Fuller, 53 Nebr. 811, 74 N.W. 269, 40 L.R.A. 408, 68 Am. St. Rep. 637; American Artistic Gold Stamping Co. v. Glenn Falls Insurance Co., 20 N.Y.S. 646; Imperial Fire Insurance Co. v. Dunham, 117 Pa. 460, 12 A. 668, 2 Am. St. Rep. 686; Collins v. London Assurance Corp., 165 Pa. 291, 30 A. 924; Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Swann, 41 S.W. 519; Morotock Insurance Co. v. Rodefer, 92 Va. 747, 24 S.E. 393, 53 Am. St. Rep. 846; Carrigan v. Lycoming Fire Insurance Co., 53 Vt. 418, 38 Am. Rep. 687; Wolpert v. Northern Assurance Co., 44 W. Va. 734, 29 S.E. 1024; Lancaster v. Southern Insurance Co., 153 N.C. 285, 69 S.E. 214, 138 Am. St. Rep. 665; Connecticut Fire Insurance Co. v. Manning, 160 F. 382, 87 C.C.A. 334, 15 Ann. Cas. 338; Lloyd v. North British Mercantile Insurance Co., etc., 161 N.Y.S.

  7. Schmid v. First Camden National Bank, c., Co.

    22 A.2d 246 (N.J. 1941)   Cited 17 times
    In Schmid v. First Camden National Bank, 130 N.J. Eq. 254 (Ch. 1941), it was said that a corporation is an entity wholly separate and distinct from the individuals who compose and control it, and that the fiction of law shall never be contradicted so as to defeat the end for which it was invented, but for every other purpose it may be contradicted, and that the corporate cloak may not be utilized as a subterfuge to justify wrong or perpetrate fraud.

    "The rights of a subrogee attach at the time the equities arise in his favor, which ordinarily is at the time he assumes and pays the debt." 60 C.J. 722 ¶ 31 F; Hare v. Headley, 54 N.J. Eq. 545;35 Atl. Rep. 445. Subrogation to the rights of the creditor does not mature, however, until the debt is fully paid. Receivers of New Jersey Midland Railway Co. v. Wortendyke,27 N.J. Eq. 658; Coe v. New Jersey Midland Railway Co., 31 N.J. Eq. 105;Bluestone Building and Loan Association v. Glasser,supra. "The principle of subrogation is one of equity merely, and will accordingly be applied only in the exercise of an equitable discretion, and always with due regard to the legal and equitable rights of others." Gaskill v. Wale's Ex'rs., 36 N.J. Eq. 527.

  8. Pease v. Travelers Fire Ins. Co.

    93 P.2d 536 (Okla. 1939)   Cited 2 times

    It is therefore generally held that outstanding mortgages and liens do not constitute a breach of the condition in a fire insurance policy that the interest of the insured be that of sole and unconditional ownership. Dolliver v. St. Joseph F. M. Ins. Co., 128 Mass. 315, 35 Am. Rep. 378; Union Assur. Soc. v. Nalls, 101 Va. 613, 44 S.E. 896, 99 Am. St. Rep. 923; Hare v. Headley, 54 N.J. Eq. 545, 35 A. 445; Petello v. Teutonia Fire Ins. Co., 89 Conn. 175, 93 A. 137, L. R. A. 1915D, 812; Citizens Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Connowingo Bridge Co., 113 Md. 430, 77 A. 378; Lancashire Ins. Co. v. Monroe, Jefferson Co., 101 Ky. 12, 39 S.W. 434."

  9. Fire Ins. Co. v. Nat. Bank

    165 A. 185 (Md. 1933)   Cited 5 times
    In Grangers' the insured never submitted any information under oath to the insurer as a purported proof of loss. That case was a contest over the surplus in a mortgage foreclosure of realty on which buildings had been destroyed by fire.

    The insurers, through their subrogation, virtually occupy the position of a purchaser from the mortgagee for value. Insurance Co. of North America v. Martin, supra, page 226 of 151 Ind. (51 N.E. 361). The payment, by them, does not operate to reduce or extinguish the mortgage debt or discharge the mortgage, but to satisfy, pro tanto, the mortgagee's claim and assign it to the insurers, leaving it in full force as against the mortgagor and those claiming under him, with no right, on their part, to claim a reduction of the debt by the payment to the mortgagee. Allen v. Watertown Fire Ins. Co., 132 Mass. 480, 483; Badger v. Platts, 68 N.H. 222, 224, 44 A. 296; Walker v. Queen Ins. Co. ( 136 S.C. 144, 134 S.E. 263), supra; Hare v. Headley, 54 N.J. Eq. 545, 558, 35 A. 445; Cooley's Briefs on Law of Insurance (2d Ed.), pp. 628, 2390, and cases cited." Other decisions to the same general effect are noted in 52 A.L.R. 278.

  10. Evans v. Farmers' Reliance Ins. Co.

    164 A. 258 (N.J. 1933)   Cited 4 times

    See, also, 4 Joyce onInsurance 2278, where it is said: "So the constructive possession of the insured goods by the sheriff under an execution is not such a change of possession as avoids the policy." The case of Hare v. Headley, 54 N.J. Eq. 545, where the Court of Chancery decided that "seizures and levies under thewrit of attachments" violated the conditions of the policy, without citing any authorities or making other comment, we think is not in point. It is enough to say that it will be seen that the court was there dealing with the effect of seizure and levy on property under attachments, and that section 9 of the Attachment act declares that "the personal property so attached shall remain in the safe keeping of the officer to answer and abide the judgment of the court," c. 1 Comp. Stat., p. 138. It would seem to follow that there the possession was consequently disturbed.