A renewal reinstates the original contract with all its terms and also incorporates into it the new terms expressed in the renewal application and representations contained therein become part of the contract; Met ropolitan L. Ins. Co. v. McTague, 49 N. J. L. 587, 9 Atl. 766, 60 Am. Rep. 661.
Every policy, whether marine, against fire, or on life, specifies or imports parties, and specifies the subject or interest intended to be insured, the premium or other con sideration, the amount insured, the risks and perils for which indemnity is stipulated, and the period of the risk, or the terminus a quo and ad quern. The subject-matter is usually more minutely described in a sepa rate paper-called an application; Beach, Ins. § 352. See APPLICATION. May, Ins. 29.
The duration of the risk, under a marine insurance, or one on inland' navigation, is either from one geographical terminus to another, called a "Voyage Policy," or from a specified time, called a "Time Policy;" that of a fire policy is for a specified time; one on life is either for life or a term of years; months, etc. It is a leading prin ciple, as to the construction of a policy of insurance, that its distinguishing character as a contract of indemnity is to be favored; which is in conformity with the common maxim, ut res valeat magis quam pereat; Brown v. Ins. Co., 18 N. Y. 385; Kingsley v. Ins. Co., 8 Cush. (Mass.) 393; Smith v. Ins. Co., 17 Pa. 253, 55 Am. Dec. 546 ; 29 E. L. & E. 111, 215 ; Moore v. Ins. Co., 16 Mo. 98 ; Sheldon & Co. v. Ins. Co., 22 Conn. 235, 58 Am. Dec. 420; Fireman's Ins. Co. v. Powell, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 311; Indianapolis Ins. Co. v. Mason, 11 Ind. 171; Atwood v. Ins. Co., 28 N. H. 234; Gloucester Ins. Co. v. Younger, 2 Curt. C. C. 322, Fed. Cas. No. 5,487; Sayles v. Ins. Co., 2 Curt. C. C. 610, Fed. Cas. No. 12,422; Philbrook v. Ins. Co., 37 Me. 137; Schenck v. Ins. Co., 24 N. J. L. 447; Peoria M. & F. Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 18 Ill. 553; Wil son v. Ins. Co., 4 R. I. 159. See Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, 94 U. S. 457.
In, marine insurance the contract has nec essarily more implied reference to customs and usages than most other contracts; or, in other words, a larger proportion of the stipulations are not specifically expressed in the instrument ; 1 Phill. Ins. § 119; whence it has been thought to be an imperfect, ob scure, confused instrument ; Yeaton v. Fry, 5 Cra. (U. S.) 342, 3 L. Ed. 117; 1 Burr. 347. But the difficulty in giving it a practical construction seems to arise more from the complication of the circumstances neces sarily involved than from any remediable de fects in its provisions and phraseology. New provisions are, however, needed, from time to time, to adapt the contract to new cir cumstances.
A mistake in filling up a policy may be corrected by order of a court of equity ; 5 B. & P. 322 ; 1 Wash. C. C. 415 ; Oliver v.
Ins. Co., 2 Curt. C. C. 277, Fed. Cas. No. 10, 498. If by accident, inadvertence, or mis take, the terms of the contract are not fully set forth in a policy, it may be reformed so as to express the real agreement; Thompson v. Ins. Co., 136 U. S. 287, 10 Sup. Ct. 1019, 34 L. Ed. 408.
A marine policy is assignable without the consent of the insurers; May, Ins. § 377; while a fire policy is not ; Jana F. Ins. Co. v. Tyler, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 385, 30 Am. Dec. 90; Simeral v. Ins. Co., 18 Ia. 319 ; 4 Bro. P. C. 431; 9 L. T. N. S. 688. An outstanding and valid life policy is held to be assignable with out the insurer's consent, provided the sale is bona fide and not a device to evade the law ; St. John v. Ins. Co., 13 N. Y. 31, 64 Am. Dec.
529; Provident L. I. & I. Co. v. Baum, 29 Ind. 236; Campbell v. Ins. Co., 98 Mass. 381'; American L. & H. Ins. Co. v. Robertshaw, 26 Pa. 189; Robinson v. Cator, 78 Md. 72, 26 Atl. 959. But see, contra, Franklin L. Ins. Co. v. Hazzard, 41 Ind. 116, 13 Am. Rep. 313. See, generally, Johnson v. Alexander, 9 L. R. A. 660; Joyce, Insurance. A pre-existing debt is a sufficient consideration for an as signment of insurance policies after loss of the property insured ; Glover v. Lee, 140 Ill. 102, 29 N. E. 680. When a policy of insur ance expressly stipulates that no assignment shall be valid withOut the consent of the company, an assignment without such con sent is without effect ; Moise v. Life Ass'n, 45 La. Ann. 736, 13 South. 170; Hewins v. Baker, 161 Mass. 320, 37 N. E. 441; and it is avoided by an assignment for the benefit of creditors ; Dube v. Ins. Co., 64 N. H. 527, 15 Atl. 141, 1 L. IL A. 57; but if made sub sequently to the loss, it is valid, regardless of the conditions; Nease v. Ins. Co., 32 W. Va. 283, 9 S. E. 233; Star U. L. Co. v. Fin ney, 35 Neb. 214, 52 N. W. 1113. Where the insured and beneficiary assign one-half their interest upon consideration that the assignee shall pay the premiums, neither the assignee nor the beneficiary can recover on the pol icy ; Metropolitan L. Ins. Co. v. Elison, 72 Kan. 199, 83 Pac. 410, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 934, 115 Am. St. Rep. 189, 7 Ann. Cas. 909.
See AGREEMENT FOR A Pennsylvania act providing that fire or life policies which contain a reference to an application therefor, or a reference to the constitution, by-laws or other rules of the company, shall contain or have attached thereto a copy of such application or rules, otherwise the application, rules, &c., shall not be received in evidence nor considered a part of the policy, is constitutional ; New Era L. Ins. Co. v. Musser, 120 Pa. 384, 14 Atl. 155; but the company cannot prevent the admission of the application in evidence ; Norristown T. Co. v. Ins. Co., 132 Pa. 385, 19 Atl. 270.
See ABANDONMENT ; AVERAGE; IxsunARTA1