Insurance; business public in character; deceptive practices prohibited.
Within the intent of this chapter, the business of apportioning and distributing losses arising from specified causes among all those who apply and are accepted to receive the benefits of such service, is public in character, and requires that all those having to do with it shall at all times be actuated by good faith in everything pertaining thereto, shall abstain from deceptive or misleading practices, and shall keep, observe and practice the principles of law and equity in all matters pertaining to such business. Upon the insurer, the insured, and their representatives, shall rest the burden of maintaining proper practices in said business.
Source:Laws 1913, c. 154, § 1, p. 393; R.S.1913, § 3137; Laws 1919, c. 190, tit. V, art. II, § 1, p. 573; C.S.1922, § 7743; C.S.1929, § 44-101; R.S.1943, § 44-101.
An endorsement which is not misleading, ambiguous, or conflicting, which amends an omnibus clause in an uncertified automobile liability insurance policy by limiting the application of the omnibus clause to use of the automobile by a person over the age of twenty-five years, except for the insured or any resident of his household, is not proscribed by statute, nor is it against public policy. Equity Mut. Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 190 Neb. 515, 209 N.W.2d 592 (1973).
Objectively reasonable expectations of a beneficiary-insured regarding terms and coverage of his insurance contract will be honored. Nile Valley Coop. G. & M. Co. v. Farmers Elevator Mut. Ins. Co., 187 Neb. 720, 193 N.W.2d 752 (1972).
Contracts of mutual insurance company called benefit thrift certificates were insurance contracts. State ex rel. Smrha v. Cosmo. Old Line Life Ins. Co., 137 Neb. 742, 291 N.W. 72 (1940).
The New York standard form of fire insurance policy, as then existing and construed in New York, was adopted as the basis of the Nebraska insurance contract, expressly subject, however, to all provisions of that chapter which modified or were inconsistent with the New York form. Mayfield v. North River Ins. Co., 122 Neb. 63, 239 N.W. 197 (1931).
The classification of insurance as a business public in character, cannot be said to be a classification with no basis therefor, and the legislation is not invalid for that reason. Nye-Schneider-Fowler Co. v. Bridges, Hoye & Co., 98 Neb. 863, 155 N.W. 235 (1915).
The entire Insurance Code is valid, even though there are objectionable parts therein. State ex rel. Martin v. Howard, 96 Neb. 278, 147 N.W. 689 (1914).