McCluskey v. Providence Washington Insurance

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

McCluskey v. Providence Washington Insurance

126 Mass. 306, 1879 Mass. LEXIS 244

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 26, 1879

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 126 Mass. 306 (McCluskey v. Providence Washington Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McCluskey v. Providence Washington Insurance, 126 Mass. 306, 1879 Mass. LEXIS 244 (Mass. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

Soule, J.

When the policy sued on was issued, Kinney, the person whom it purported to insure against loss, had no insurable interest in the property, and the policy was therefore void in her hands. The assignment of all her interest in the policy to the plaintiff, assented to by the defendant, did not create a new and independent contract of insurance between the parties to this action. The plaintiff took by the assignment only such rights as Kinney had under the policy. Bowditch Ins. Co. v. Winslow, 8 Gray, 38. Loring v. Manufacturers’ Ins. Co. 8 Gray, 28. Lawrence v. Holyoke Ins. Co. 11 Allen, 387. No new consideration passed to the defendant, and it did not make any new undertaking beyond that of substituting the plaintiff for Kinney in the existing contract. The case differs in this from the cases in which assignees of policies of mutual insurance companies have given new premium notes or assumed old ones, in consideration of the assent of the companies to the assignment; Foster v. Fquitable Ins. Co. 2 Gray, 216; and from the cases in which the company agrees in writing that the policy shall continue in force to the assignees. Tripp v. Pacific Ins. Co. 7 Allen, 230.

The contract being in writing, paroi evidence to vary it was inadmissible. Barretts. Union Ins. Co. 7 Cush. 175. The action is based on the policy as it was written, and cannot be maintained by evidence that the contract was intended by the plaintiff or her assignor to be a different one. If there was a mistake in [309]*309the written contract, it cannot be rectified in this action. The learned judge, who tried the case in the Superior Court, erred in ruling that the facts testified to, as to the knowledge of the defendant and the payment of the money, and the representation that all had been done which was necessary to make the policy a good one, were evidence of an assent by the defendant that the policy, otherwise void, should be treated as a new and operative instrument in the hands of the plaintiff.

Exceptions sustained.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Soule, J.

When the policy sued on was issued, Kinney, the person whom it purported to insure against loss, had no insurable interest in the property, and the policy was therefore void in her hands. The assignment of all her interest in the policy to the plaintiff, assented to by the defendant, did not create a new and independent contract of insurance between the parties to this action. The plaintiff took by the assignment only such rights as Kinney had under the policy. Bowditch Ins. Co. v. Winslow, 8 Gray, 38. Loring v. Manufacturers’ Ins. Co. 8 Gray, 28. Lawrence v. Holyoke Ins. Co. 11 Allen, 387. No new consideration passed to the defendant, and it did not make any new undertaking beyond that of substituting the plaintiff for Kinney in the existing contract. The case differs in this from the cases in which assignees of policies of mutual insurance companies have given new premium notes or assumed old ones, in consideration of the assent of the companies to the assignment; Foster v. Fquitable Ins. Co. 2 Gray, 216; and from the cases in which the company agrees in writing that the policy shall continue in force to the assignees. Tripp v. Pacific Ins. Co. 7 Allen, 230.

The contract being in writing, paroi evidence to vary it was inadmissible. Barretts. Union Ins. Co. 7 Cush. 175. The action is based on the policy as it was written, and cannot be maintained by evidence that the contract was intended by the plaintiff or her assignor to be a different one. If there was a mistake in [309]*309the written contract, it cannot be rectified in this action. The learned judge, who tried the case in the Superior Court, erred in ruling that the facts testified to, as to the knowledge of the defendant and the payment of the money, and the representation that all had been done which was necessary to make the policy a good one, were evidence of an assent by the defendant that the policy, otherwise void, should be treated as a new and operative instrument in the hands of the plaintiff.

Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 Mass. 306, 1879 Mass. LEXIS 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccluskey-v-providence-washington-insurance-mass-1879.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack