may be recovered unless the death was the natural result of carrying the weapon.58 According to one line of authorities, the death must occur while the insured is in the very act of committing a crime. If the insured loots a cash drawer, starts to escape and is killed with the goods on him, before he reaches the outer door, he has not met death in violation of law, even though he was killed by a policeman. At least, such was the decision in Nebraska,59 apparently on the theory that carrying away the loot is not a crime, and that the crime was a thing of the past. The United States Supreme Court has handed down a decision which gives much less cause for congratulation to violators of the law. The insured was driving a race horse for money, in violation of law. A collision occurred. Then the insured jumped to the ground, and tried to stop his horse, but was killed in trying to get hold of the reins. Though racing for money may be illegal, stopping a race horse is not. However, recovery was denied on the ground that the illegal act and the death were but parts of the res gestae, forming one continuous transaction.60 58 Jones v. U. S. Mut. Acc. Assn., 92 Iowa 652, 61 N. W. 485. 59 Griffin v. Western Mutual Benevolent Assn., 20 Neb. 620, 31 N. W. 122. 60 Insurance Co. v. Scaver, 19 Wall. 531 (U. S.). CHAPTER XI. MARINE INSURANCE. 91. The marine insurance business.-Though fire insurance covers but a single form of loss, destruction of property by fire, and life insurance becomes payable on the happening of but one event, death, it is otherwise in the case of marine insurance. If the "perils of the sea," fire, pirates or capture cause a loss of a vessel or her cargo, the owner is entitled to indemnity, if he has procured the customary form of marine insurance. The most discouraging feature of American marine insurance is the fact that probably more than half of it is in the hands of foreign companies. Moreover, certain extensive ship owners, whose fortunes are not all in one bottom trusted, find that it is cheaper to lose a ship occasionally than to carry insurance on all of their vessels, and therefore carry no marine insurance. 92. The risks assured.-In the United States, each marine insurance company has its own form of policy. However, there is substantial uniformity. "Touching the adventures and perils which the said X Insurance Company is contented to bear, and takes upon itself in this voyage, they are of the seas, menof-war, fires, enemies, pirates, rovers, thieves, jettisons, letters of marque and countermarque reprisals, takings at sea, arrests, restraints and detainments of all kings, princes or people of what nation, condition or quality soever, barratry of master and marines, and all other perils, losses and misfortunes, that have or shall come to the hurt, detriment, or damage of the said goods and merchandises, or any part thereof." Thus the policy covers losses due to the perils of inanimate forces and the hostile acts of man. Ordinary wear and tear is not a peril of the sea, but an inevitable accompaniment of navigation and is therefore not covered by marine insurance. Endless difficulty has arisen here, as in many other branches of the law, in determining what is the proximate cause of a given loss. It is agreed that the insurer is not liable unless the peril insured against is the procuring or efficient cause of the loss. For example, during our Civil War, Confederate troops put out the light on Cape Hatteras. This caused the captain of the vessel insured accidentally to wreck the ship. Part of the cargo was saved, part could have been saved but for the conduct of Confederate soldiers. The rest was lost with the ship. Though the cargo was insured "free from the consequences of hostilities," the insured was allowed to recover only for the part of the cargo lost with the ship. The proximate cause of the loss of this portion, the English court held, was the wrecking of the ship, not the putting out of the light.61 All other perils. The very comprehensive assumption of risk as to "all perils, losses and misfortunes" 61 Ionides v. Univ. Mar. Ins. Co., 14 C. B. (N. S.) 259 (Eng.). has been of much less assistance to persons insured than such language seems to indicate. Under the well-known rule of construction, noscitur a sociis (it is known from its associates), this phrase must be interpreted in the light of the perils enumerated 62 and therefore includes only risks similar to those expressly covered. Further limitations upon the risks insured against are embraced within the doctrine of "implied warranties," a term peculiar to marine insurance. 93. Implied warranties. It is customary to say that in all marine insurance contracts there are three implied warranties by the insured: (1) that the vessel is seaworthy, (2) that there shall be no deviation, and (3) that the vessel shall not, with the consent of the insured, embark in a venture tainted with illegality. Objection has been urged to the appellation "implied warranties," and it is contended that these are really conditions precedent to the attaching of the risk and should, therefore, be called "conditions," not warranties. Nevertheless the term "implied warranty" is fixed in marine insurance. Seaworthiness. If a vessel be insured under a voyage policy, that is, for a given voyage, the insurer is not liable for any loss unless the vessel was seaworthy at the time she commenced her voyage. In England no such condition is implied in a time policy; that is, insurance for a definite period. In this country there is a conflict of authority on the question.63 Deviation. Any deviation avoids the policy even 62 Compare § 90. 63 Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Morrison, 62 Ill. 242, 14 Am. Rep. 93. though the vessel is in no way injured by the act. A striking fact is this, that even though the vessel keeps in the straight and narrow path prescribed in the policy she is guilty of deviation if she makes unreasonably slow time.64 On the other hand, she may depart from her path without deviating in this technical sense if forced to do so by stress of weather or circumstances, for example, danger of capture. Illegality. But one extraordinary ruling in regard to illegal ventures is worthy of mention. In England and certain American jurisdictions trading ventures involving the breach of foreign revenue laws are not regarded as coming within this provision, and therefore insurance in such cases may be recovered.65 94. The two classes of average losses.-The doctrine of general average in admiralty law may be illustrated as follows: A piano owned by X and duly insured is stored in the same warehouse with another piano owned by Y and also insured. A fire destroys X's piano but leaves Y's unharmed. X's insurer must stand all the loss. Where, in marine insurance, the loss falls entirely upon the one, out of several, who have property on board the same vessel, such a loss is called a "particular average loss." General average losses are also recognized in marine, though not in fire insurance, as when the master of a vessel is forced to sacrifice a hundred bales of cotton, all belonging to X, in order to save the ship with a remaining hundred bales on board 64 Arnold v. Pacific Mutual Ins. Co., 78 N. Y. 7. 65 Parker v. Jones, 13 Mass. 173. |