Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance v. Reynolds

Burke, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Frank M. Reynolds sued the appellant, a corporation,, in the Superior Court of Baltimore City, on a policy of insurance, and from a judgment rendered against it in that suit it has appealed. The suit was instituted on the i.ith day of May, 1906, and the declaration is precisely similar to the one filed in the preceding case of the Continental Insurance Company v. Reynolds, ante, except as to the date on which the ¹⁰⁸ policy" is alleged to have been issued. Certain legal questions, arising under the “Iron Safe Clause” of the policy, were presented under the defendant’s third and fourth prayers which were refused, but under an agreement incorporated in the record these questions are not to be considered in this case.

The questions raised upon the record for our determination are: first, was the suit properly brought under the Act of 1886, chapter 184, known as the speedy judgment Act of Baltimore City? secondly, was the suit prematurely brought? In the preceding case we held that a suit on a fire insurance policy could be brought under that Act. This appellant, as the evidence shows, did not act fairly and frankly with the policy holder, and its conduct is utterly irreconcilable with the recognition of its responsibility under the policy. The record shows that the first proofs of loss were mailed to John J. Babcock, the General Agent for the defendant company, on’ March 12th, 1906, accompanied by a letter from Mr. Lee in which he said : “We have made this proof of loss up as near as we could to conform to your rules.

If it is insufficient please advise us and we will endeavor to correct the same.” To this no answer was received, and on the 15 th of March Mr. Lee again wrote asking for a reply. .On the 16th ofMarch he wrote directly to the company at Springfield, Illinois, and said that he had sent to Mr. Babcock, the company’s agent at Philadelphia, on the 10th inst., the proof of loss; there was an error in the date .mentioned, for while the letter enclosing the proof of loss was dated March 10th, it was not actually mailed until the 12th. In his letter to the company Mr. Lee said: “You have never seen fit to acknowledge the receipt of any of my letters though your agents here, McVo’mas and Kroh, admitted to me that you received the iproof of loss. I went to Philadelphia on the 21st inst., to see you about this loss, but missed you, and they said you were here in Baltimore examining this loss, as you called up your agent Record at Bel Air.” No response was made to this letter, and on the 30th of March Mr. Lee again wrote Babcock saying: “Please let me have answer to ¹⁰⁹ my recent communications in regard to the loss of Frank M. Reynolds at Level, Md. We have tried to comply with your