Deviation

Varying from the risks insured against, as described in the policy, without necessity or just cause, after the risk has begun.

1 Phill. Ins. § 977.

Any unnecessary or unexcused departure from the usual or general mode of carrying on the voyage insured.

15 Am. L. Rev. 108. See also Coffin v. Ins. Co., 9 Mass. 436.

A voluntary departure without necessity or reasonable cause from the regular and usual course of the voyage in reference to the terms of a policy of marine insurance.

Hostetter v. Park, 137 U. S. 30, 11 Sup. Ct 1, 34 L. Ed. 568.

The mere intention to deviate is not a deviation, and if not carried into effect will not vitiate a policy or exempt insurers from a loss happening before the vessel arrives at the dividing port; Marine Ins. Co. v. Tucker, 3 Cra. (U. S.) 357, 2 L. Ed. 466; Maryland Ins. Co. v. Woods, 6 Cra. (U. S.) 29, 3 L. Ed. 143. Usage, in like cases, has a great weight in determining the manner in which the risk is to be run, — the contract being understood to have implied reference thereto in the absence of specific stipulations to the contrary; Folsom v. Ins. Co., 38 Me. 414; Winter v. Ins. Co., 30 Pa. 334; Fletcher v. Ins. Co., 18 Mo. 193; De Peyster v. Ins. Co., 19 N. Y. 272, 75 Am. Dec. 331; Hostetter v. Gray, 11 Fed. 181; Hostetter v. Park, 13T U. S. 30, 11 Sup. Ct. 1, 34 L. Ed. 568. To touch and stay at a port out of its course is not a deviation if such departure is within the usage of the trade; id; Marande v. Ry. Co., 184 U. S. 173, 22 Sup. Ct. 340, 46 L\ Ed. 4S7.

— A variation from risks described in the policy from a necessity which is not inexcusably incurred does not forfeit the insurance; 1 Phill. Ins. § 1018; as to seek an intermediate port for repairs necessary for the prosecution of the voyage; 1 Phill. Ins. § 1019; changing the course to avoid disaster; Haven v. Holland, 2 Mas. 234, Fed. Cas. No. 6,229; delay in order to succor the distressed at sea; 6 East 54; Mason v. The to save property merely; Crocker v. Jackson, 1 Spra. 141, Fed. Cas. No. 3,398; Bond v. The Cora, 2 Wash. C. C. 80, Fed. Cas. No. 1,621; The Boston, 1 Sumn. 328, Fed. Cas. No. 1,673; damage merely In defence against hostile attacks; 1 PhilL Ins. g 1030;

— or In taking measures to repel such attacks; Haven v. Holland, 2 Mas. 230, Fed. ('as. No. 6,229. "Liberty to touch-* at a pari port, reserved in the policy, does not Imply liberty to remain for trading, which, if it involves delay, may amount to deviation; Maryland ins. Co. v. Le Roy, T Cra. (U. S.) 26, 3 L. Ed 257; nor to touch and stay at a port out of the course when within the usage of the trade; Bulkley v. Ins. Co., '-' Pai. 82, Fed. Cas. No. 2,118; Bentaloe v. Pratt, Wall. C. C. 58, Fed. Cas. No. 1,330. Necessity alone will sanction a deviation, and the latter must be strictly commensurate with the power compelling; Maryland Ins. Co. v. Le Roy, 7 Cra. (U. S.) 26,:: L. Ed. 257; the smallest deviation without necessity discharges the underwriters, though the loss be not the immediate consequence of the deviation; Martin v. Ins. Co., 2 Wash. C. C. 254, Fed. Cas. No. 9,161. The same doctrine is applicable in the case of a hill of lading. Shipowners are held to be deprived of the exemptions contained therein, even where the deviation was not the cause of the damage; 23 T. L. R. 89. See article in 15 Am. L. Rev. 108. The effect of a deviation in all kinds of Insurance is to discharge the underwriters, whether the risk is thereby enhanced or not; the doctrine applies to lake and river navigation as well as ocean; 1 PhilL Ins. § 987. See Insurance; Departure; Hastes Act. In the law of railways, a lateral alteration of the line of a railway. The railways clauses act in England authorizes a company which is subject to its provisions to deviate on the line marked on the deposited plans within the limits delineated thereon. Hodg. Railw. 341. In Contracts. A change made in the progress of a work from the original plan agreed upon. When the contract Is to build a house according to the original plan, and a deviation takes place, the contract must he traced as far as possible, and the additions, if any have been made, must he paid for according to the usual rate of charging;.". B. & Aid. 47. And see 14 Yes. 413; Mc Ferran v. Taylor,:; Cra. (U. S.) 270, 2 L. Ed. 436; Munroe v. Perkins, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 29S, 20 Am. Dec. 475; Chit. Contr. 10S.