Chapter XCVIII: Section CCXXXVII: (c)

FIRE INSURANCE.

The present system of fire insurance has been introduced in many places by the establishment of so-called domanial fire-guilds (_Domanial-Brandgilden_), by which the country population on crown-lands bound themselves to mutually assist one another by furnishing thatch, and horse and hand power in the rebuilding of burned houses. Whatever was wanting after this was made up by gratuitous supplies of wood from the public forests, by the granting of governmental fire-licenses to beg (_begging letters_), by permission to have collections made in the churches[237c-1] etc. The next step was generally the establishment of public insurance (_Landes-Assecuranz_) only for houses,[237c-2] but with compulsory membership. This compulsion was justified by the continuing interest of the state in the payment of the house-tax, as well as by the interest of the eventual owner of the estate, and of hypothecation-creditors.[237c-3] [237c-4] The insurance of moveable property is much more recent, both by reason of the nature of the property itself, which becomes of importance only at a later date, and also on account of the much greater difficulty of carrying on such insurance.[237c-5] The thought of making this species of insurance compulsory, or of turning it over to the state, has seldom been suggested.

[Footnote 237c-1: Thus in Austria, even after the middle of
the 18th century: _Schopf_, L. W. des öst. Kaiserstaates, I,
p. 175. In the mandate of the electorate of Saxony of Dec.
7, 1715; but the fire-fund (_Feuerkasse_) of 1729 depended
on voluntary but regular collections, besides which it
obtained certain contributions from the state and the
church. Those who gave nothing, however, were threatened
with getting nothing, or very little, in case of fire.
Parties desiring to rebuild massively had especially much to
expect. (Cod. August Forst., I, 538.) The charters of the
oldest German _Landesbrandkassen_ contain a provision that,
in future, no further fire-collections shall be allowed.]

[Footnote 237c-2: The English Hand-in-Hand Fire Office for
houses, founded in 1696; the Union Fire O., for houses and
movable property, in 1714: both mutual institutions. The
premium-institution, the Sun Fire Office, 1710
(_Frankenberg_, Europ. Herold, 1705, II, 181), mentions fire
insurance as a special characteristic of England. But we may
trace fire insurance on buildings and harvest supplies in
the low countries about the Vistula in Prussia, even as far
back as 1623. (_Jacobi_, loc. cit., 131.) Brandenburg
fire-fund, 1705, with voluntary admittance of all houses,
and fixed relation between the yearly contribution and the
insurance capital. If a fire happened, the fund repaired the
damage caused to the fullest extent its means allowed.
(_Mylius_, Corp. Const. March. V., I, 174 seq.) Even in
1706, it became necessary to prohibit speaking ill of the
institution. It was, therefore, abolished later. The first
Würtemberg private fire insurance company, 1754, founded on
similar principles, and which was still existing in 1760,
had a like fate (_Bergius_, Polizei und Camerelmagazin, III,
40 ff.), but it was exchanged in 1773 for a mutual public
company. In Berlin a mutual insurance company in 1718
(_Bergius_, Cameralistenbibliothek, 151); in Denmark, 1830
(_Thaarup_, Dän. Statist., II, 173 seq.); in Silesia, 1742;
Calenberg-Grubenhagen, 1750; in Baden, 1758; in Kurmark,
1765; in Hildesheim, 1765; in Hesse-Darmstadt, 1777. In
France, the Parisian institution of 1745 is considered the
oldest. (_Beckmann_, Beitr. z. Gesch. d. Erfindd., I, 218.)]

[Footnote 237c-3: In Galenberg-Grubenhagen only the
_Bauerhöfe_ subject to the common burthens were obliged to
enter, in Hildesheim, all houses subject to taxation; in
Darmstadt all house-owners who were allowed only a _dominium
utile_. In Kurmark, the subjects of the estate might be
compelled to enter by their lords, but could not be kept
out. Of Prussian companies in 1846, entrance was compulsory
only in those of East Prussia and Posen. In Würtemberg
compulsion since 1773; confirmed in 1853. Also in Zurich,
Jan. 24, 1832; in Schaffhausen Nov. 27, 1835. In Berne, only
for state, municipal and mortgaged houses; for the latter
only so far as it was not expressly left to the creditor.
Introduced into Baden in 1807, after most of the parishes
(_Gemeinden_) had voluntarily accepted it; confirmed in
1840. The provision that at least no judicial hypothecation
should be made on an un-insured house is found in the
Darmstadt law of 1777, § 13, and in that of Mainz of 1780,
art. I, § 15. _Rau_, Lehrbuch, II, § 25 a., finds compulsion
in the case of property in common and in that of property
belonging to other persons very appropriate. It is a matter
worthy of thought, that, in cities like Berlin, Breslau,
Thorn and Stettin, compulsory fire insurance is still
retained. In Upper Silesia, the abolition of compulsory
provisions has had for effect to cause 52 per cent. of all
buildings to be insured. (Press Zeitschr, 1867, 329).]

[Footnote 237c-4: Question of introducing state insurance
into Hungary. As a cultured land, and one rich in capital,
is better adapted to insurance, it would be folly to
"emancipate" ones self from Trieste, etc. in this respect.
But, on the other hand, only state-insurance can attract the
Hungarians and make them feel universally the want of
insurance. A reconciliation of these opposing views might be
effected by compelling the peasantry to insure their farm
houses, and allowing complete liberty in the cities and with
reference to movable property.]

[Footnote 237c-5: Even _Bergins_, Polizei und Cameralmag.,
III, 80, 1768 ff., doubts the possibility of the insurance
of movable property. Insurance of movable property of the
Evangelical clergy in the electorate of Mark, in which,
however, only movable property of the value of 400 thalers
is considered. But by this provision the changeableness of
the object, which so facilitates fraud, was done away with.
Hamburg joint-stock company for the insurance of movable
property, 1779. Electorate of Saxony fire-fund for movable
property, 1784-1818, which, however, made good, as a rule,
only 25 per cent. of the damage caused. In Prussia, in 1814,
there were only 12 insurance companies in which movable
property could be insured. In the aggregate even they were
but of little extent, and had generally a partnership,
guild, or communal basis. (_Jacobi_, loc. cit, 123.) On the
other hand, in 1869, there were in all the mutual insurance
companies, 530,600,000 thalers worth of movable property
insured, besides 2,814,800,000 thalers worth of immovable
property, and 366,100,000 thalers worth of property of a
mixed nature, partly movable and partly immovable. (Preuss.
Statist. Zeitschr., 1876, 298.)]