A ship became a constructive total loss through stranding and was later totally con sumed by fire ; under a valued policy, the underwriters were held liable for the loss ; 12 L. T. R. 97.
There may be a claim for a total loss in addition to a partial loss ; Hugg v. Ins. & Banking Co., 7 How. (U. S.) 595, 12 L. Ed. 834. A total loss of the ship is not necessari ly such of cargo ; Adams v. Ins. Co., 3 Binn. (Pa.) 287; nor is submersion necessarily a total loss ; 7 East 38 ; nor is temporary de lay of the voyage ; 5 B. & Ald. 597.
A constructive total loss, and an abandon ment thereupon of the ship, is a constructive total loss of freight ; and a constructive total loss and abandonment of cargo has a like effect as to commissions or profits there on ; and the validity of the abandonment will depend upon the actual facts at the time of the abandonment, as the same may subse quently prove to have been ; 2 Phillips, Ins.. § 1630 ; Herbert v. Hallett, 3 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 93. See ABANDONMENT.
An insured cannot recover for a total loss of a vessel, in the absence of proof of aban donment and of notice of the same on the insurer ; Gomila v. Ins. Co., 40 La. Ann. 553, 4 South. 490.
In determining the proportion which the cost of repairing a vessel must bear to its value, so as to justify its abandonment to the insurers as a constructive total loss, its value as stated in the policy controls, and not its actual value immediately before the accident; Murray v. Ins. Co., 72 Hun, 282,
25 N. Y. Supp. 414.
Under a fire insurance policy, it is not necessary to show that all the material of the building was destroyed, to sustain a finding of total loss, and where it is such a loss, a provision of the policy limiting the amount to less than the sum written is in Bouv.-129 valid ; Insurance Co. of North America v. Bachler, 44 Neb. 549, 62 N. W. 911; Royal Ins. Co. v. McIntyre, 90 Tex. 170, 37 S. W. 1068, 35 L. R. A. 672, 59 Am. St. Rep. 797. The loss has been held to be total where the building was so injured as to lose its identi ty ; Commercial Union Assur. Co. of London v. Meyer, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 7, 29 S. W. 93 ; Lindner v. Ins. Co., 93 Wis. 526, 67 N. W. 1125 ; or so that it was unsafe and was con demned by the municipal authorities ; Mon teleone v. Ins. Co., 47 La. Ann. 1563, 18 South. 472, 56 L. R. A. 794. But where the roof and interior woodwork of a building were destroyed, leaving the walls standing, it was a question for the jury whether it was a total loss within the meaning of the policy ; Corbett v. Ins. Co., 85 Hun 250, 32 N. Y. Supp. 1059.