WARRANTY. In Insurance. A stipulation or agreement on the part of the insured par ty, in the nature of a condition.
An express warranty is a particular stipu lation introduced into the written contract by the agreement of the parties.
An implied warranty is an agreement which necessarily results from the nature of the contract: as, that the ship shall be seaworthy when she sails on the voyage in sured.
An express warranty usually appears in the form of a condition, expressed or direct ly implied in the phraseology of the policy, stipulating that certain facts are or shall be true, or certain acts are or shall be done by the assured, who by accepting the insurance ratifies the stipulation.
Where the stipulation relates wholly to the future, it is a promissory condition or war ranty ; 1 Phill. Ins. § 754.
An express warranty must be strictly com plied with; and the assured is not permitted to allege, in excuse for non-compliance, that the risk was not thereby affected, since the parties have agreed that the stipulated fact or act shall be the basis of the contract ; 1 Phil. Ins. § 755 ; unless compliance is ren dered illegal by a subsequent statute ; id. § 769. All reasonable doubts as to whether statements inserted in or referred to in an insurance policy are warranties or represen tations should be resolved in favor of the as sured ; Providence Assur. Soc. v. Reut linger, 58 Ark. 528, 25 S: W. 835 ; Anders v. Knights of Honor, 51 N. J. L. 175, 17 Atl. 119. When the application is by the express terms of the policy made a part of the contract, a breach of any warranty in the application invalidates the entire contract; Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Kelly, 114 Fed. 268, 52 C. C. A. 154; but where a provision merely says that all statements are warranted to be full, com plete and true, they amount to representa tions; Reppond v. Ins. Co., 100 Tex. 519, 101 S. W. 786, 11 L. ,R. A. (N. S.) 981, 15 Ann. Cas. 618.
A breach of warranty vitiates the insur ance, though the insured made the warranty without hnowledge of its falsity; Clemons v.
Soc. of Good Fellows, 131 N. Y. 485, 30 N. E. 496, 16 L. R. A. 33 ; Holloway v. Ins. Co., 48 Mo. App. 1; 9 L. R. Q. B. 328. Breach of warranty in an insurance does not avoid the policy when the insured is an in fant; O'Rourke v. Ins. Co., 23 R. I. 457, 50 Atl. 834, 57 L. R. A. 496, 91 Am. St. Rep. 643.
Questions of warranty in insurance have been much litigated : In fire policies, with reference to assign ments of the insured property, or the policy; Hooper v. Fire Ins. Co., 17 N. Y. 424; Birdsey v. Ins. Co., 26 Conn. 165 ; • conformity to charter; Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Keyser, 32 N. H. 313, 64 Am. Dec. 375 ; condition of the premises, including construction, locality, and manner of using ; Townsend v. Ins. Co., 18 N. Y. 168 ; Frisbie v. Ins. Co., 27 Pa. 325; Wilson v. Ins. Co., 4 R. I. 141; 'distance of other buildings ; Hall v. Ins. Co., 6 Gray (Mass.) 185 ; Davis v. Ins. Co., 81 Ia. 496, 46 N. W. 1073, 10 L. R. A. 359, 25 Am. St. Rep. 509; frauds ; Grigsby v. Ins. Co., 40 Mo. App. 276 ; kind of risk; Burbank v. Ins. Co., 24 N. H. 550, 57 Am. Dec. 300; Frost's D. L. & W. W. Works v. Ins. Co., 37 Minn. 300, 34 N. W. 35, 5 Am. St. Rep. 846; smok ing on premises ; Hosford v. Ins. Co., 127 II. S. 399, 8 Sup. Ct. 1199, 32 L. Ed. 196; limiting right of action ; Haskins v. InS. Co., 5 Gray (Mass.) 432; Brown v. Ins. Co., 5 R. I. 394; notice and demand; First Baptist Church v. Ins. Co., 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 69; and proof of loss ; Trask v. Ins. Co., 29 Pa. 198, 72 Am. Dec. 622 ; Peoria M. & F. Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 18 Ill. 553 ; Queen Ins. Co. v. Young, 86 Ala. 424, 5 South. 116, 11 Am. St. Rep. Cleaver v. Ins. Co., 71 Mich. 414, 39 N. W. 571, 15 Am. St. Rep. 275; SUgg v. Ins. Co.,