There is a distinction between this loss and other kinds of insurance with respect to the value of the policy, which has been thus stated : The loss provable on a policy of insurance is ordinarily the reserve value of the policy, or the amount sufficient to re-insure the holder in a solvent company for the same amount, to be paid upon a loss happening on the same conditions and with in the same time. Credit insurance is pecul- ' iar ; there does not appear to be any re serve value to the policies, nor are there any general tables to show the rate of re insurance, nor any other solvent company in which re-insurance could be obtained. When no losses occurred it may be assumed that the premium is a fair price for the risk, and the loss may be taken to be a proportionate part of the ptemium. When actual losses have been sustained after the insolvency and before the proof, these may be accepted as evidence of the value of the policy; Duryee v. Credit Co. (N. J.) 32 Atl. 690.
Under a policy of indemnity to the in sured, to the extent of $10,000, against losses in excess of one-fourth of one per cent. of their annual sales, twelve per cent. addition al to be deducted from the total gross losses, the claim not to exceed $7,500, by any one firm, where there was a loss with one firm of $20,000, the total gross loss from which deductions were to be made was $7,500, and the balance was the indemnity to be paid ; Rice v. Ins. Co., 164 Mass. 285, 41 N. E, 276.
A policy of credit insurance was termi nated by the insolvency of the insured, and the deduction to be made before the "excess" was ascertained was calculated on the amount of sales made up to the time of in solvency and not on the amount stipulated for the term of the policy ; 25 Ins. L. J. 842.
A provision in such a policy that amounts realized from ether security or indemnity shall be deducted before the adjustment of a loss, does not entitle the insurer to deduct the proceeds of a policy in another company which provides that it shall not cover losses insured by the first company, but shall only attach when that company's policy is ex hausted; American Credit Indemnity Co. v. Wood, 73 Fed. 81, 19 C. C. A. 264. One who is the agent of the insurer for the purpose of soliciting such insurance, transmitting ap plications, and collecting premiums, and who receives pay therefor, has power to make an additional agreement providing that if the customer is not rated in Dun's and is rated in Bradstreet's, the latter shall be binding on the insurer; Shakman v. Credit Co., 92 Wis. 366, 66 N. W. 528, 32 L. R. A. 383, 53 Am. St. Rep. 920; and to vary details of the policy as to credit rating; id.
Employer's Liability Insurance. A contract by which the company agrees to reimburse an employer for any loss occasioned by his liability for damages to an employe, injured in his service.
The liability of the insurer becomes fixed on the happening of the accident or casual ty, even though the amount of such liability is contingent, to the extent that the amount which the insured may be adjudged to pay has not been ascertained ; American Casual ty Ins. Co.'s Case, 82 Md. 535, 34 Atl. 778,
38 L. R. A. 97.
Under a policy of insurance against dam age for which the insured may be liable un der an employer's liability act (q. v.) where the workman has recovered damages for in juries in a common-law action, and not under the statute, the insurer will not be liable to reimburse the amount so recovered ; 16 Can. S. C., 4th ser. 212 ; but where the policy con tained a clause agreeing to indemnify the insured against damages sustained by the employk while engaged in operations con nected with the business of iron work, it was held to cover injuries received by rea son of the construction of a building for the use of such business ; Hoven v. Assur. Corp., 93 Wis. 201, 67 N. W. 46, 32 L. R. A. 388.
There is no obligation on the part of the insurer which can become the subject of. garnishment in proceedings by an employe to enforce a judgment against the insured; Allen v. Ins. Co., 145 Fed. 881, 76 C. C. A. 265, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 958.
A policy which provides that the employer shall not settle with an employe without the consent of the insurer, who was to assume control of litigation, is a contract of indem nity against liability, and payment by the employer of a judgment recovered against him is not a condition precedent to the in surer's liability ; id.; and a person who is injured cannot sue the insurer ; Embler v. Ins. Co., 8 App. Div. 186, 40 N. Y. Supp. 450. But where the insurer was prohibited from suing until after judgment 'against him, in which case an action might be brought with in thirty days after such judgment, it was held that the contract was not one of indem nity merely, so that an action would lie aft er judgment was recovered against the em ployer, though it was paid by him, such pay ment not being a condition precedent to re covery ; Anoka Lumber Co. v. Casualty Co., 63 Minn. 286, 65 N. W. 353, 30 L. R. A. 689 ; nor is a discharge of liabilities by the in sured, under a clause in the policy promis ing to pay "all damages with which the in sured may be legally charged," such a con tract being not one of indemnity alone, but also a contract to pay liabilities; American Employers' Liability Ins. Co. v. Fordyce, 62 Ark. 562, 36 S. W. 1051, 54 Am. St. Rep. 305. When the insured was required to give im mediate notice to the insurer upon the oc currence of an accident and notice of any claim on account of it, the notice under the condition is not required until an accident happens and the employer has received no tice of a claim made on account thereof ; Anoka Lumber Co. v. Casualty Co., 63 Minn. 286, 65 N. W. 353, 30 L. R. A. 689.