iron-safe clause in Texas

1896The other issue, as to whether the iron safe clause should be treated as a warranty in this case, seems to be fully covered by the case of Goddard v. Insurance Co., 67 Texas, 69 .

1887Co., 67 Tex. 69 , in-that the slip in the Goddard case did not coxitain a description of the property, while the slip in this case does; that the iron-safe clause in the Goddard case had no penalty provided for a failure to observe it, while in this case a penalty is provided; that in the Goddard case the iron-safe clause did not refer in any •way to the policy, while ixi this case it does.

1935App. 516 , 38 S. W. 62 , Finley, Justice, held that a forfeiture of the policy for noncompliance with the iron safe clause is waived if the company, with knowledge of the' breach of the condition, causes the insured to be examined under oath pursuant to a clause in the policy.

1934Underwriters’, etc., v. Palmer & Co., 32 Tex. Civ.

1930Co. v. Stell, 20 S. W. (2d) 399 , by the Waco Court of Civil Appeals, it was held that .where insurer’s agent issuing original policy and contracting to renew same knew that insured had no iron safe and that insured kept his books and papers in a wooden desk which was destroyed by fire, insurer, by issuing the policy and contracting to renew same, thereby waived the iron-safe clause, and could not after .loss for first time make complaint and assert failure to keep iron safe as a defense.

1930App.) 20 S.W.(2d) 399 , does not come within the purview of the facts shown in this case; that Stell had a policy of insurance on his property containing an iron-safe clause; that he had the policy for almost a year, and the evidence shows that the agent knew he had not complied with the record warranty clause; that the agent knew this fact during the life of this existing policy.

1922The rule upon this subject, as recently laid down by our Supreme Court, through the Commission of Appeals, is thus stated in Merchants’ & Manufacturers’ Lloyds v. Southern Trading Co., 229 S. W. 312 : “The purpose of the bookkeeping provision is to provide a' means by the hooks themselves for ascertaining the amount of the loss.

1916App. 516 , 38 S. W. 64 . [3] Plaintiff in error’s second proposition is that if the iron-safe clause was not a part of the policy there was no contract of insurance, inasmuch as the property insured was not described in the face of the policy.

1916Couch v. Insurance Co., 32 Tex. Civ.

1916Couch v. Insurance Co., 32 Tex. Civ.

1916Goddard Case, supra. Our courts, however, hold when this clause is made part of the policy that it is a promissory warranty, and must be substantially complied with Brown v. Insurance Co., 89 Tex. 590 , 35 S.W. 1060 .

1916Goddard Case, supra. Our courts, however, hold when this clause is made part of the policy that it is a promissory warranty, and must be substantially complied with Brown v. Insurance Co., 89 Tex. 590 , 35 S.W. 1060 .

1916In a recent case by the Galveston Court (Commonwealth Insurance Co. v. Finegold, 183 S. W. 833 ) that court held the act constitutional, but further held the statute refers only to those warranties and provisions in policies the breach of which might have contributed to bring about the loss, but which did not, and that the act did not refer to the iron safe clause.

1916In a recent case by the Galveston Court (Commonwealth Insurance Co. v. Finegold, 183 S.W. 833 ) that court held the act constitutional, but further held the statute refers only to those warranties and provisions in policies the breach of which might have contributed to bring about the loss, but which did not, and that the act did not refer to the iron safe clause.