1. Defendant obtained an automobile accident insurance policy from complainant by fraudulently concealing from the complainant the fact that the insured auto truck had been involved in an accident a short while before, and sought by this scheme to secure financial protection against loss for which he feared he was liable. Held, the policy ordered canceled.
2. Complainant company cannot be held under P.L. 1931 ch. 169. It had a right to refuse at once to be bound by a policy contract fraudulently obtained, upon learning of the fraud.
3. There was no policy in existence or even contemplated at the time the accident occurred, and hence section 10 of P.L. 1931 ch. 169, does not apply. Although an insurer may assume a risk to commence previous to the date of the policy and will be liable for a loss occurring before the actual policy date, this is only so where there is no fraud or concealment of the loss by the insured.
4. Cancellation of the policy in question will not deprive the injured infant defendant, and her parents, of any right they had against the owner of the truck at the time their cause of action accrued.
PER CURIAM.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Vice-Chancellor Fielder in the court of chancery.
For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, VAN BUSKIRK, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, JJ. 15.
For reversal — None.