
    No. 10,444.
    Westinghouse Electric Company vs. Western Assurance Company of Toronto.
    When several policies are taken out in different companies, without any relation to each other, on the same propei'ty, they are independent contracts, and the policy in one company can not be received in evidence to explain or vai*y whai is contained in the other.
    Where property is valued at $90,000, and an insurance is effected on -1-36 of said amount, and there is a total loss, the company is responsible for the amount insured, $2,500, upon which it received a premium. The policy can not be construed to mean that the insurer is liable only for 1 -36 of the loss.
    
      PPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Monroe, J,
    
    Farrar, Jonas <& Kruttsehnittj for Plaintiff and Appellee:
    1. The policy being prepared by tin1, insurer himself, it is to be most strongly construed against him. National Bank vs. Insurance Company, 95 United States, p. (¡78.
    2. ‘*11 is a recognized rule in the construction of statutes that a thing which is within the intention of a statute is as much within the statutes as if it were-within the letter; and a thing which is within the letter of the statute is not within the statute unless it he within the intention of the makers.” People vs. Utiea Insurance Company, 15 Johns, 858. This proposition is equally applicable to oilier written instruments. The object of all symbols is to convey the meaning-of those who nso them, and where that can he ascertained it is conclusive. The intent of the law makers is the law, and here the intent of the parties is the contract. Insurance Company vs. Uridley, 100 United States, p. 614.
    8. *• Having indemnity for Us object, the contract is to ho construed liberally to that end, and it is presumably the intention of tlio insurer that the assured shall imderstand that in case of loss he is to be protected to the full extent which any lair interpretation will give. The spirit of the rule is that where two interpret tutions equally fair may be given, that which gives the greater indemnity shall prevail.”* May on Insurance, Section 174, p. 208; V. & A. Meyer vs. Queen Insurance Company, lately decided by this court and not reported.
    
      L Tim policy sued on is plainly a policy guaranteeing the plaintiff against loss or damage by fire to the extent of $2,500 on the property described.
    5. It is not a valued policy, and can not reasonably bo construed as such.
    6. It contains no guarantee by 1 he assured that the property is worth 'any fixed sum. or that he will carry any part of the risk.
    7. It is not a policy upon any proportion of a risk fixed and valued at a particular amount.
    s. Read in the light of surrounding circumstances, it was clearly the intention of the parties that of the $90,000 of insurance to bo negotiated in various companies, $2,500 worth, or L-86th ol* the risk, was assumed by this company.
    9. These surrounding circumstances were admissible for the purpose of'ascertaining the subject matter of the contract. 22 Wallace 118; 95 U. S. 95;101U. >S. 271; 102 T. S. 65.
    
      Harry H. Hall, for Defendant and Appellant.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

McEneky, J.

This is a suit to recover from the defendant company insurance to the amount of $2,500 on the plaintiff’s property. The facts are as follows:

“In the year 1887 the Southwestern Brush Electric Light and Power Company of New Orleans employed Charles L. Ulhorn, insurance broker, to place $90,000 of insurance upon their plant. This $90,000 of insurance was placed at various times, for various amounts, in various companies, the policies being substantially of the same form and effect as the extracts from the hereinafter set forth policies. Prior to the 26th of March, 1888, $30,000 of the insurance expired by limitation, and was not renewed.

On the 26th of March, 1888, the plaintiff in this cause, the Westinghouse Electric Company, under a fi. fa. from the Circuit Court of the United States, levied upon all the property insured belonging to the Southwestern Brush Electric. Light and Power Company; $50,500 of the then existing insurance was continued, pending seizure upon the property, by proper endorsements by the companies on each policy.

The other $9,500 of existing insurance was not renewed, because the companies holding policies refused to renew while the property was under seizure.

On the 1st of May, 1888, under the fi. fa. aforesaid, the whole of the property insured was adjudicated to the Westinghouse Electric Company, plaintiff in this cause, and the then existing $50,500 of insurance was contined in favor of the Westinghouse Electric Company, as owner of the property by proper endorsements, such as those -which appear upon the policy sued on in this cause.

The following is the manner in which the risk was described in the policies making up the $50,500 of insurance thus continued in favor of the Westinghouse Electric Company:

Springfield Insurance Company — “Against loss or damage by fire to the amount of $2,500, or one-thirty-sixth of each,'of the following-items :

On their brick, slated building, situated on Dryades street, between Union and Gravier streets, in the City of New Orleans, and known as the Southwestern Brush Electric Light and Power Company, $6,000.

“ On all machinery, engines, boilers, appurtenances, and appliances, used in said works, and contained in the above described building, $84,000. With privilege to make necessary alterations and repairs.- Other concurrent insurances permitted without notice until' required.”

Phoenix Insurance Company — “ Against loss or damage by fire to the amount of $2,500, or 25-900 of each of the following items.”

Balance same as above.

Home Insurance Company, New Orleans — “ Against loss or damage by fire to the amount of $26,000, as per form attached.”

Balance same as above.

Hamburg and Bremen Insurance Company — " Against loss or damage by fire to the amount of $3,500, or 7-180 of each of the following items.”

Balance same as above.

Home Insurance Company, of New York — “ Against loss or damage by fire to the amount of $3,500, being 35-900 in the following risks and amounts.”

Balance same as above.

Western Insurance Company, of Toronto — Description contained in original policy, made part of this statement.

On July 16, 1888, the property was totally destroyed by fire. Due notice of loss was given to all the companies, and proofs of loss in due form of law were transmitted to the defendant on August 6, 1888. Controversy having arisen about the amount of the loss, arbitrators were appointed by both parties, and on August 16, 1888, the loss was adjusted by the unanimous report of these arbitrators at the sum of $75,413.75, of which $71,763.70 was the loss adjusted upon the machinery and $3,650 was the loss adjusted upon the building.

Thereupon the plaintiff demanded payment of the defendant of the full amount of the policy, the sum of $2,500, which sum the defendant refused to pay, and this suit was brought.

The defendant denies liability until the award contained in the tenth condition of the policy has been complied with.

The above statement of facts disposes of this objection.

The defendant sets up specifically that the liability can not be greater than 1-36 of $75,413.75, the actual value of the property destroyed and loss sustained. The defendant appeals.

The plaintiff has filed a motion to amend by increasing the judgment to §2,500.

The policy is as follows:

"This policy of assurance witnesseth that: In consideration of the sum of fifty dollars, net, the Western Assurance Company does by these presents cause the Southwestern Brush Electric Light and Power Company, and their legal representatives, to be assured twenty-five hundred dollars on 1-36 of the following risk and amounts, as per printed form attached to this policy:

“The Southwestern Brush Electric Light and Power Company, on their brick, slated building, situated on Dryades street, between Union and Gravier streets, in the City of New Orleans, and known as the ‘ Southwestern Brush Electric Light and Power Company, $6,000.’

“ On all machinery, engines, boilers, and appurtenances and appliances used in said works, and contained in above described building, $84,000.”

There were other policies in different’ companies taken out on the same property for various amounts. The forms of these policies were offered in evidence and admitted over the objections of defendant, on the ground that they were res inter alios acta and irrelevant.

Each policy was a distinct, separate, and independent obligation, and it had -no reference whatever to any other. The obligations in one could not explain the doubts and uncertainties, if they existed, in the other.

This evidence, therefore, was improperly admitted. The insurance was 1-36 of a risk valued at $90,000.

The policy is plain and unambiguous in language and evident in meaning. The plaintiff insured with the defendant company property to the value of $2,500, for which risk he paid a premium of $50.

Tiie language employed will not admit of any other construction. There was a total loss of the property insured, and the defendant is responsible for the amount of the insurance effected on the property and upon which it received a premium.

Any other interpretation of this policy would be to destroy the object and purpose of the policy to indemnify the assured for the loss sustained. In the policy there is no stipulation that the assured shall bear any portion of the loss.

The judgment appealed from is, therefore, amended so as to allow plaintiff $2,500 as indemnity for the loss. In all Other respects it is affirmed. The defendant to pay costs of appeal.  