CONCEALMENT. The improper suppres sion of any fact or circumstance by one of the parties to a contract from the other, which in justice ought to be known.
The omission by an applicant for insur ance preliminarily to state facts known to him, or which he is hound to know, material to the risk proposed to be insured against, or omission to state truly the facts expressly inquired about by the underwriters to whom application for insurance is made, whether the same are or are not material to the risk.
Concealment, when fraudulent, avoids a contract, or renders the party using it liable for the damage arising in consequence there of ; Kidney v. Stoddard, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 252 ; Prentiss v. Russ, 16 Me. 30 ; Jackson v. Wil cox, 1 Scam. (Ill.) 344 ; 3 B. & C. 605 ; Dan iels v. Ins. Co., 12 Cush. (Mass.) 416, 59 Am. Dec. 192. But it must have been of such facts as the party is bound to communicate ; Webb, Poll. Torts 368 ; 3 E. L. & Eq. 17 ; Otis v. Raymond, 3 Conn. 413 ; Van Arsdale & Co. v. Howard, 5 Ala. 596 ; Kintzing v. McElrath, 5 Pa. 467 ; Stevens v. Fuller, 8 N. H. 463 ; Hamrick v.. Hogg, 12 N. C. 351; Fleming v. Slocum, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 403, 9 Am. Dec. 224 ; George v. Johnson, 6 Humphr, (Tenn.) 36, 44 Am. Dec. 288. A concealment
of extrinsic facts is not, in general, fraudu lent, although peculiarly within the knowl edge of the party possessing them ; Laidlaw v. Organ, 2 Wheat. (U. S.) 195, 4 L. Ed. 214 ; Blydenburgh v. Welsh, Baldw. 331, Fed. Cas. No. 1,583 ; Bench v. Sheldon, 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 72 ; Burnett v. Stanton, 2 Ala. 181. But see Frazer v. Gervais, Walk. (Miss.) 72; Baker v. Seahorn, 1 Swan (Tenn.) 54, 55 Am. Dec. 724; Hough v. Evans, 4 McCord (S. C.) 169. And the rule against the concealment of latent defects is stricter in the case of personal than of real property ; Mason v. Crosby, 1 Woodb. & M. 342, Fed. Cas. No. 9,234 ; 3 Campb. 508 ; 3 Term 759.
A failure to state facts known to an in surer or his agent, or which he ought to know, or which lessen the risk, for that only is material which tends to increase the risk, in the absence of express stipulation, and where no inquiry is made, is no concealment ; May, Ins. § 207 ; Lexington Fire, Life & Ma rine Ins. Co. v. Paver, 16 Ohio 334.
'Where there is confidence reposed, conceal Ment becomes more fraudulent ; 9 B. & C. 577.
See, generally, 2 Kent 482 ; DECEIT; MIS