| Research and Educational Projects at the Maryland State Archives |
|
|
|
|
| Contact the Department of Special Collections for location. |
| THE MARYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY v. WOODS.
10 U.S. 29 (1810) 6 Cranch 29
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant insurer appealed a judgment of the United States Circuit Court of the District of Maryland, which held defendant was liable to plaintiff under a policy of insurance for the seizure and condemnation of plaintiff's schooner and cargo by a British naval vessel enforcing a blockade off Amsterdam, on the island of Curacao.
OVERVIEW: Defendant insurer argued that it was not liable to plaintiff under a policy of insurance following the seizure and condemnation of plaintiff's schooner and cargo by a British naval vessel enforcing a blockade off Amsterdam, on the island of Curacao. The decision below supported plaintiff's cause of action, because the schooner's master apparently did not believe that Curacao was blockaded when he departed his original destination, Laguira, approached the island, and attempted to enter the port of Amsterdam. In stressing an exception asserted by defendant, the court noted that defendant's requested jury instruction -- to reject plaintiff's claim if the master entered Amsterdam after finding it not blockaded, and was then captured -- had been refused. The court explained that if the master's ultimate destination when detouring to Amsterdam was not contemplated by the policy, then plaintiff was not covered. But if that destination was covered as a neighboring port, then the detour to Amsterdam was a deviation for which defendant also was not liable, the court stated. Failure to allow the jury to consider evidence on the master's destination was error, the court concluded.
OUTCOME: Judgment holding defendant insurer liable to plaintiff under insurance policy following seizure and condemnation of plaintiff's schooner and cargo at sea reversed, and remanded, as jury was not allowed to consider evidence of schooner master's ultimate destination after being refused entry to destination originally contemplated by policy, as such ultimate destination may have barred plaintiff's suit under the policy.
Napoleonic Wars: British capture of U.S. for violating blocade
Counsel: P.B. Key & Martin for insurer?: Harper contra
Opinion: Marshall, C.J. |
