Among the perils covered by this kind of insurance are included: the loss of horses and cattle, theft of valuables, breakage of plate glass, loss by tornadoes or force of the elements, explosion or bursting of boilers, etc. These policies usually stipulate certain exceptions against which they will not in sure, as fire and lightning; but such a pol icy was held to cover a loss by flood ; Hey v. Indemnity Co., 181 Pa. 220, 37 Atl. 402, 59 Am. St. Rep. 644. An exception against loss caused by leakage resulting from earth quakes or cyclones will cover leakage caused by a wind storm which resembles a tornado more than a cyclone ; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Finch, 147 Fed. 388, 77 C. C. A. 566, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 308.
A carrier may lawfully insure against lia bility for loss of goods occasioned by the negligence of a servant; Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. v. Ins. Co., 64 Minn. 61, 66 N. W. 132 ; in such a case the liability of the insured becomes fixed on the happening of the accident, although the amount is con tingent, to the extent that the amount which the insured may be adjudged to pay has not yet been ascertained ; American Casualty Ins. Company's Case, 82 Md. 535, 34 Atl. 778, 38 L. R. A. 97.
A policy against loss or damage to prop erty, and loss of life or, injury to employes of the insured or other persons, payable to the insured for the benefit of such persons or their legal representatives, is a contract of indemnity, and a person who is injured by such explosion cannot sue the insurer ; Em bler v. Ins. Co., 8 App. Div. 186, 40 N. Y. Supp. 450.
In a policy on live stock the insurer is es topped to deny that the sum named in the policy is the insurable value of the horse; Illinois Live Stock Ins. Co. v. Koehler, 58 Ill. App. 557. Where the policy covering "two horses" was cancelled as to one, the insured may show that it was cancelled as to a mare covered by the policy; Pfeifer v. Ins. Co., 62 Minn. 536, 64 N. W. 1018. The provision for notice to the insurer by tele gram, of the sickness of an animal, did not require such notice of a sickness which last ed only ten minutes and did not recur for seven weeks; Kells v. Ins. Co., 64 Minn. 390, 67 N. W. 215, 71 N. W. 5, 58 Am. St. Rep. 541. Where the insured had given notes for the horse, and in his contract for purchase stipulated that in case of the death of the animal within a certain time the vendor should take the insurance and give up the notes, it was not a breach of the stipulation in the policy that the vendee "is the sole, absolute, and unconditional owner ;" id. The
insurer is not bound by the consent of his agent to kill the horse insured, although suf fering from an incurable disease; Tripp v. Live-Stock Ins. Co., 91 Ia. 278, 59 N. W. 1.
Where plate glass was insured and the insurer, exercising his option, employed a person with whom he had a contract for that purpose to replace it (the policy pro viding that the insured should when neces sary remove any woodwork, gas fixtures, or other obstruction), the negligent removal of gas pipes by the contractor and a resulting explosion causing a breakage of the new glass, did not render the insurer liable; Mc Cauley v. Casualty Co., 16 Misc. 574, 38 N. Y. Supp. 773.
Credit Insurance. A contract by which the insured is indemnified against loss by the failure of his customers to pay for goods sold to them. It is insurance against excess loss by the insured, i. e. against a loss which is in excess of a specified percentage of gross sales. It usually limits the losses insured against to a fixed amount by reason of sales to any one person, and limits the sales, cov ered by the policy, to customers having at least a specified minimum commercial rating by a specified commercial agency. It usual ly provides for an initial loss to be borne by the insured.
The insured is frequently termed the "in demnified," and so referred to in the policy. Such contract is not a contract of surety ship, but a policy of insurance; Tebbets v. Guarantee Co., 73 Fed. 95, 19 C. C. A. 281; Shakman v. Credit Co., 92 Wis. 366, 66 N. W. 528, 32 L. R. A. 383, 53 Am. St. Rep. 920; Mercantile Credit & Guaranty Co. v. Little ford Bros., 18 Ohio Cir. Ct. 889; and to be construed most strongly against the insur er ; id. , It is like any other insurance contract and is governed largely by the same rules ; Wadsworth v. Jewelers Co., 132 N. Y. 540, 29 N. E. 1104; Claflin T. Credit Co., 165 Mass. 501, 43 N. E. 293, 52 Am. St. Rep. 528. The agent who solicits it is within the pur view of a statute making him the agent of the insurer ; Shakman v. Credit Co., 92 Wis. 366, 66 N. W. 528, 32 L. R. A. 383, 53 Am. St. Rep. 920.