Insurance policies often contain a condition that a change of interest, title, or possession shall work a forfeiture of the policy.

"This condition is intended to protect the insurer from any contingency that might increase the risk assumed by the insurer by decreasing the interest of the insured. Hence it is construed to include any such acts or events affecting the title of the insured as substantially change the quantity of his beneficial interest, immaterial modifications of interest, title, or possession being ignored." 9

The condition against other insurance is to prevent over insurance, and will generally only be held to forfeit the policy when it has such effect.

Any increase of risk is such a substantial change of conditions as to work a forfeiture of the policy.

This question was thus discussed in the case of Kyte vs. Assurance Co.10 as follows:

'The question is thus presented whether the provision of the policy that it shall be void in case of an increase of risk means that it shall be void only during the time while the increase of risk may last, and may revive again upon the termination of the increase of risk. The provision is that the policy shall be void if any one of several circumstances successively enumerated shall be found to exist. Some of these circumstances relate to the time of issuing the policy, and others could not arise until afterwards. They are of different degrees of importance, some of them going to the essential matters of the contract, and others being comparatively trivial in character. The language of the policy is the same in respect to them all, that the policy shall be void. In Hinckley vs. Insurance Co., 140 Mass., 38, 1 N. E. Rep., 737, the policy was in the same form as those in the present cases, and for a short time during the term of the policy the plaintiff kept a bowling-alley and billiard-table without having any license therefor. There was no question of increase of risk or other actual prejudice to the insurer; and, under these circumstances, two questions arose: First, whether the plaintiff's act fell within the provision that the policy should be void if gunpowder or other articles subject to legal restriction should be kept in a manner different from that allowed by law; and, secondly, whether, assuming that the policy would be void during the time of the illegal keeping of the bowling-alley and billiard-table, it would revive after such temporary use had ceased. In deciding the case the court intimated that the plaintiff's act was not within the meaning of the provision in the policy, unless the risk was thereby increased, but placed the decision upon the second ground, that the policy would revive. The court now thinks it would have been better to place the decision of this part of the case solely upon the first ground, leaving it an open question whether a departure from the terms of the provisions of the policy, without an increase of risk, may be deemed merely to suspend, and not absolutely to avoid, the policy. However that may be, we think an increase in risk entitles the insurer to avoid the policy absolutely. The contract of insurance depends essentially upon an adjustment of the premium to the risk assumed. If the assured, by his voluntary act; increases the risk, and the fact is not known, the result is that he gets an insurance for which he has not paid. In its effect upon the company it is not much different from the misrepresentation of the condition of the property.

9 Vance on Insurance, Sec. 161.

10 149 Mass., 116; 21 N. E. 361.

"If the provision stood alone, that in case of any material misrepresentation as to the risk, or any voluntary increase of risk afterwards, the policy should be void, it could hardly be doubted that the words should be taken in their natural obvious meaning. The fact that with this are coupled the other provisions above referred to does not change its meaning with reference to the effect and consequence of an increase of risk. An increase of risk which is substantial, and which is continued for a considerable period of time, is a direct and certain injury to the insurer, and changes the basis upon which the contract of insurance rests; and since there is a provision that in case of an increase of risk which is consented to or known by the assured, and not disclosed, and the assent of the insurer obtained, the policy shall be void, we do not feel at liberty to qualify the meaning of these words by holding that the policy is only suspended during the continuance of such increase. Lyman vs. Insurance Co., 14 Allen, 329; Mead vs. Insurance Co., 7 N. Y., 530. It follows, therefore, that the fourth instruction which was requested, or something in substance like it, should have been given. Upon the facts stated and assumed, the increase of risk, if there was one, continued for 15 months, and could not be treated as a casual, inadvertent, or inevitable thing. Exceptions sustained."