Sardo v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.

100 N.J.Eq. 332, 134 A. 774 (1926)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Sardo (P) sought an insurance policy for his jewelry. After extensive contact with insurance agents and brokers, he contracted with D for that policy, but the policy that was issued by D was for money and securities. P was not insured for his jewelry in his store in Paterson, N.J. Prior to the issuance of the policy in question, the agents visited his place of business. P thought that the definition of securities in the policy covered his jewelry and did not protest the meaning of “money and securities.” P’s agent did not examine the policy but assumed that it covered the jewelry. Securities in the policy was defined clearly as bonds, debentures, checks, coupons, demand and time drafts, promissory notes, bills of exchange, warehouse receipts, bills of lading, express and postal money orders, certificates of stock and deposit and other negotiable instruments. P paid the usual premium for such a policy. P's store was robbed, and a considerable amount of jewelry was taken. It was discerned that the agent of the company that P had applied to for the insurance knew that no securities were present at P's store location. There was no suggestion that the insurance company ever knew the real facts. The Vice Chancellor, based on that testimony, reformed the contract by striking out securities and replaced it with jewelry. D appealed.