An offer by a newspaper in each issue to pay a sum named to the heirs of one acci dentally dying within twenty-four hours from the last issue, provided that the printed slip containing the offer should be found on the person of the deceased, is a contract of in surance ; Com. v. Philadelphia Inquirer, 15 Pa. C. C. R. 463.
Binding Receipt. The usual practice is for the agent, upon the payment of the pre mium, to issue what is termed a binding re ceipt, which is, in effect, an executory con tract to issue a policy if the risk is accepted by the company, and, meanwhile, the insur ance is in force. Such contracts are valid and will be enforced at law and in equity ; Gold v. Ins. Co., 73 Cal. 216, 14 Pac. 786 ; Sandford v. Ins. Co., 11 Paige 547; and a charter provision requiring "all policies or contracts" to be signed by certain officers has been held not to apply to such agreements ; Baile v. Ins. Co., 73 Mo. 371; Franklin F. Ins. Co. v. Colt, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 560, 22 L. Ed. 423 ; First Baptist Church v. Ins. Co., 19 N. Y. 305 ; Amazon Ins. Co. v. Wall, 31 Ohio St. 633, 27 Am. Rep. 533.
Where an insurance company delivers a binding slip on certain property, a complete temporary contract of insurance exists; Smith & Wallace Co. v. Ins. Co., 68 N. J. L. 674, 54 Atl. 458 ; so where such slip accom panies a new agreement ; Belt v. Ins. Co., 163 N. Y. 555, 57 N. E. 1104, and the company is estopped from denying the authority of its agent issuing the binding slip where there is no notice to the applicant of any limitation of authority ; Starr v. Ins. Co., 41 Wash. 228, 83 Pac. 116 ; Schlesinger v. Ins. Co., 37 App. Div. 531, 56 N. Y. Supp. 37. The ques tion whether the binder was considered by both parties to be temporary insurance is for the jury ; Underwood v. Ins. Co., 66 App. Div. 531, 73 N. Y. Supp. 251. A memoran dum on the books of the company, made by the agent and assented to by the applicant, is a sufficient binder ; Queen Ins. Co. of America v. Laundry Co., 7 Ga. App. 787, 68 S. E. 310. It need not even state the premium to be paid by the insured ; Jacobs v. Ins. Co., 148 Ill. App. 325. It becomes ineffective on delivery of policy to the insured; Goodhue v. Ins. Co., 184 Mass. 41, 67 N. E. 645 ; but , there is no temporary insurance where the company declines the risk ; Mohrstadt v. Ins. Co., 115 Fed. 81. 52 C. C. A. 675.
See AOBEEMENT FOR INSURANCE.
Adjustment. Where a loss occurs, the as certainment of the amount due upon the policy is termed adjustment (q. v.). Notice
of the loss must be given in accordance with the terms of the condition, which is precedent to recovery ; Central City Ins. Co. v. Oates, 86 Ala. 558, 6 South. 83, 11 Am. St. Rep. 67; L. R. 20 Ir. 93 ; Patrick v. Ins. Co., 43 N. H. 621, 80 Am. Dec. 197. This is distinct from proof of loss (q. v.), which must be also made as stipulated, or, in de fault of express provision, in a reasonable time; Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Brown, 128 Pa. 392, 18 Atl. 396. See Loss.
More Than One Policy. Other insurance may be taken on the same property without restriction unless there be such in the con tract; Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Bemiller, 70 Md. 400, 17 Ad. 380 ; 14 Q. L. R. 293 ; Mowry v. Ins. Co., 9 R. I. 346; and no notice is re quired unless so stipulated ; Murray v. Ins. Co., 2 Wash. C. C. 186, Fed. Cas. No. 9,961; but when the insurance is on property, only one indemnity can be collected, and there is a right of contribution among insurers; Peoria Marine & Fire Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 18 Ill. 553; Clarke v. Assur. Co., 146 Pa. 561, 23 Atl. 248, 15 L. R. A. 127, 28 Am. St. Rep. 821; but it is usual to stipulate that each insurer, if there are more than one, shall be liable only pro rata; Barnes v. Ins. Co., 9 Fed. 813.
Where there are thirty insurers and the' loss is less than the total amount insured, the holder of the policy is not limited in his recovery to the proportionate share of each insurer, but may recover for the whole loss, leaving to him his remedy against his asso ciates; Sumner v. Piza, 91 Fed. 677; where there is a promise by the insured to take out insurance to the value of eighty per cent. of the property and he fails to do so, although the loss is less than the amount of insurance, he is regarded as an insurer fox the difference between the amount actually insured and the eighty per cent ; and he must sustain the loss of this proportion; Stephenson v. Ins. Co., 116 Wis. 277, 93 N. W. 19 ; Farmers' Feed Co. of New Jersey v. Ins. Co., 173 N. Y. 241, 65 N. E. 1105. It is usual to require notice to the company when other insurance is placed upon the property in other companies ; Northern Assur. Co. v. Bldg. Ass'n, 183 U. S. 308, 22 Sup. Ct. 133, 46 L. Ed. 213. An agreement that several insurers are to be liable pro rata and that a single suit shall be brought, which shall be decisive as against all, is valid ; New Jer sey & Pennsylvania Concentrating Works v. Ackermann, 6 App. Div. 540, 39 N. Y. Supp. 585.