{
  "id": 875748,
  "name": "Columbian Exposition Salvage Company v. Union Casualty & Surety Company of St. Louis",
  "name_abbreviation": "Columbian Exposition Salvage Co. v. Union Casualty & Surety Co.",
  "decision_date": "1905-10-27",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 11,340",
  "first_page": "245",
  "last_page": "251",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "123 Ill. App. 245"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "198 Ill. 431",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        845351
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/198/0431-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 499,
    "char_count": 12488,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.525,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0873401050065137e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5646203697590091
    },
    "sha256": "157f9ba65a92138257cd3734c3fcb81daaf8054070697c9b4d7e51db4468943b",
    "simhash": "1:bf3877d8de429cd4",
    "word_count": 2028
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:23:11.271447+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Columbian Exposition Salvage Company v. Union Casualty & Surety Company of St. Louis."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Me. Justice Baker\ndelivered the \u00f3pinion of the court.\nThe plaintiff offered in evidence the policy sued on with the document attached thereto called the \u201c Employer\u2019s Liability Contract \u201d and also the document thereto attached called the \u201c Contractor\u2019s Liability Endorsement,\u201d1 but did not offer in connection therewith either the copy of the application for the policy which was attached to said \u201c Employer\u2019s Liability Contract \u201d or the application for the \u201c Contractor\u2019s Liability Endorsement\u201d which was attached to said, endorsement, and the trial court held that, as copies of said applications were attached to documents which were attached to the policy, such copies formed a part of the contract, and the whole instrument, including such copies, must be offered. To this ruling the plaintiff excepted and then offered and put in evidence the policy with the documents thereto attached, including said copies, and later put in evidence the original applications.\nThe policy states in its first line that the insurance company \u201c in consideration of the warranties made in the application therefor \u201d insures the plaintiff, etc. The application for the \u201c Employer\u2019s Liability Contract \u201d begins as follows:\n\u201c Application is hereby made for a policy of insurance * * * to be based upon the following statement of facts, which are to be considered as warranties.\u201d\nThe application for the \u201c Contractor\u2019s Liability Endorsement\u201d begins as follows: \u201c Application is hereby made for a Liability Endorsement, (Form M. L.) * * * the said endorsement being based upon the following statement of facts which are to be considered as warranties,\u201d and further declares that, \u201cit is hereby warranted that the statements made in the Employer\u2019s Liability Application with which this is concurrent are correct.\u201d The \u201c Contractor\u2019s Liability Endorsement\u201d states that, \u201cIn consideration of the agreements made in the application \"herefor this insurance is extended to cover the liability of the assured to persons other than employes happening at the place or places described in the application herefor, a copy of which application is endorsed on the back hereof and is hereby made a part of this contract, it being expressly provided that this endorsement is issued subject to all the provisions, conditions and limits of the employer\u2019s policy of which it forms a part.\u201d\nWe think the trial court did not err in holding that the statements contained in the applications were warranties; that the policy, the \u201c Employer\u2019s Liability Contract,\u201d the conditions thereto attached and the application of the assured therefor, the \u201c Contractor\u2019s Liability Endorsement,\u201d the conditions thereto attached and the application of the assured therefor are a part of the insurance contract between the parties; nor in holding that the plaintiff could not put the policy and contracts thereto attached in evidence without putting in evidence the copies of the applications therefor which were attached to said contracts. Treat v. Merchant\u2019s Life Assn., 198 Ill. 431.\nIt is said in the brief for plaintiff in error that: \u201cThe basis for the ruling of the court in directing a verdict for the defendant in this case was the following question and answer in the application :\n\u2018Q. No explosives or chemicals used except as herein stated ? A. No.\u2019 \u201d\nThe contention for the plaintiff in error is that, as the question was in form negative, the answer \u201cAn\u201d denied that no explosives were used and in effect affirmed that explosives, were used, under the rule of construction that two negatives make an affirmative. This contention cannot be maintained. In our language affirmative and negative questions are used without distinction.\nWe can say equally, Can he read? or, Ocm he not read? Will you, take this? or, Will you not take this? In either' case, whether the question be in form negative or affirmative, an affirmative answer is an affirmation and a negative answer a denial.\nIt being important to the insurer to know whether explosives were to be used by the assured a'nd the question being general whether explosives or chemicals were not used except as stated, the answer must be understood to apply to the future prosecution of the business. The warranty was promissory; was an agreement by the applicant that it would not thereafter use explosives or chemicals in the prosecution of its business.\nThe warranty was not as to an existing fact or situation known to the insurer that rendered the contract void under its conditions, in which case the insurer, if it accepts the application and premium and issues the policy, is .estopped from availing itself of non-compliance with the conditions on the ground of fraud or injustice. The warranty looked to the future conduct of the applicant, and by its terms the assured undertook to perform the stipulation that in the prosecution of its business no explosives or chemicals should be used.\nThe fact that the insurer had previous to the issuing of the policy in question been informed by the applicant that it might use dynamite in its business could not affect its promise not to use explosives or chemicals thereafter. The trial court therefore, we think, properly excluded the applications of the assured for the policy of which the policy in question xvas a renewal and other policies issued before the application for the present policy was made, all of which stated that dynamite might be used in demolishing one or more of the World\u2019s Fair Buildings.\nWe think that upon the evidence the Oircnit Court properly directed a verdict for the defendant, and the judgment of that court will be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Me. Justice Baker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Alden, Latham & Young, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Geoege W. Wall, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Columbian Exposition Salvage Company v. Union Casualty & Surety Company of St. Louis.\nGen. No. 11,340.\n,1. Insurance policy\u2014what component pari of. An application for insurance, a copy of which is attached to the policy issued pursuant thereto, is a part of the policy where such application contains statements of fact which constitute warranties.\n2. Explosives\u2014ivhat construed as agreement not to tise. The following question and answer contained in an application for an insurance policy is construed as constituting an agreement not to use explosives : \u201c Q. Any explosives or chemicals used except as herein stated ? A. No.\u201d\nAction of assumpsit. Error to the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Edward P. Vail, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1903.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 27, 1905.\nStatement by the Court. This is a writ of error to reverse a judgment for the defendant entered on a directed verdict for the defendant upon the trial of an action of assumpsit brought by the assured against the insurer upon a contractor\u2019s liability policy of insurance. The policy sued on begins thus:\n\u201c Bo. 16002.\n\u201cUnion Casualty and Surety Company of St. Louis, Mo., in consideration of the warranties contained in the application herefor and of the sum of $24.50-100 does hereby insure Columbian Exposition Salvage Company, hereinafter called the assured, as follows, viz.\u201d\nThen, follows a blank space. The remaining words of the policy following the documents attached to the policy at such blank space, except signatures, are as follows :\n\u201cAnd this policy shall only cover losses sustained by and liability for any claims against the assured as a result of the risk specified in the contract, or contracts hereto attached, between the Sixth day of June, Eighteen hundred and Ninety-five, and the Sixth day of June, Eighteen hundred and Ninety-six, at 12 o\u2019clock noon, to be paid at the office of the Company in the city of St. Louis, State of Missouri, -within thirty days after the proof of loss, injury or death has been duly verified by the assured and has been received and accepted by.the Company, such payment being subject to the covenants and agreements herein, and this policy is issued and accepted upon the condition that all-the provisions printed upon the back of that part thereof, or the slip or slips attached to this policy, are accepted and shall be fulfilled by the assured as part of this contract as fully as if they were recited at length over the signatures hereto affixed.\u201d * * *\nThe first of the documents attached to the policy at such blank space is as follows:\n\u201cemployers\u2019 liability insurance contract.\nAgainst legal liability for damages respecting fatal or non-fatal injuries from accidents occurring to any.employe or employes of the assured incurred while engaged in his, her or their employment at the place or places mentioned in the application for this policy, the Company\u2019s liability being limited in respect of an accident which shall cause death or injury to any one employe to the sum of Five thousand dollars, and subject to the foregoing limitation, the Company\u2019s total liability in respect of any single accident causing death or injury to two or more employes is limited to the sum of Fifteen thousand dollars.\nAttached to and forms part of Policy No. 16002.\nUnion Casualty and Surety Company of St. Louis, Mo.\nC. B. Beardsley, General Agent.\nIt is expressly provided that this contract of insurance is issued and accepted subject to the conditions and agreements printed on the reverse side hereof, which are made a part of this policy.\nTo tub Union Casualty and Surety Company of St. Louis, Mo. :\nApplication is hereby made for a policy of insurance under the form and subject to the Company\u2019s policy known as Employers\u2019 Liability Contract, to be based upon the following statement of facts, which are to be considered as warranties:\n1. Name of employer, Columbian Exposition Salvage Co. * * * 4. Nature of business is wrecking buildings, etc. * * * 6. No explosives are used except as herein stated: No. * * * The original application signed by the assured must be forwarded to the Company with contract attached, making an exact copy of the one gummed to the policy. * * * .\u201d\nThe second document attached to the policy at such blank space is as follows:\n\u201cIn consideration of the agreements made in the application herefor and of sum expressed in policy Dollars (S ) this insurance is hereby extended to cover the liability of the assured for damages respecting fatal or nonfatal injuries occurring to any person or persons whomsoever other than employes of the assured and happening at the place or places described in the application herefor, a copy of which is endorsed on the back hereof, and is hereby made a part of this contract; it being expressly provided that this endorsement is issued subject to all the provisions, conditions and limits of the Employers\u2019 Liability Policy of which it forms a part. This insurance does not apply to injuries caused by horses or vehicles and covers only accidents resulting from the operations of the business in respect of which this insurance is granted.\nThe risk to commence at noon this 6th day of June, 1895, and to terminate on the 6th day of June, 1896, at noon.\nAttached to and forms part of Employers\u2019 Liability Policy No. 16002.\nUnion Casualty and Surety Co. of St. Louis, Mo.\nC. B. Beardsley, General Agent.\nCOPT OF APPLICATION ON \u2022WHICH THIS ENDOESEMENT IS ISSUED.\nApplication is hereby made for a Liability Endorsement (Form M. L.) which is to be an extension of the Employers\u2019 Liability Policy issued to the subscriber hereunto, the said endorsement being based upon the following statement of facts which are to be considered as warranties:\nL\u00edame of Employer. Columbian Exposition Salvage Co. Address of Employer, Jackson Park, Worlds Fair Grounds, Chicago, Ills.\nL\u00edature of business. Wrecking buildings & disposing of salvage therefrom & lumber yard.\n. It is understood and agreed that the premium for this insurance is to be based upon the actual expenditure of wages necessary to conduct the operations in respect of which this insurance is desired; and it is hereby warranted that the statements .made in the Employers\u2019 Liability application with which this is concurrent are correct. * *\nPlaintiff\u2019s evidence showed that in October, 1895, through the use of dynamite by the plaintiff in-demolishing a World\u2019s Fair building Samuel Hobson, who was not an employee of the plaintiff, came to his death; that his administrator recovered a judgment against plaintiff for wrongfully causing his death, which plaintiff paid. The direction to find a verdict for the plaintiff was given at the close of plaintiff\u2019s case.\nAlden, Latham & Young, for plaintiff in error.\nGeoege W. Wall, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0245-01",
  "first_page_order": 265,
  "last_page_order": 271
}