Case LXIII: A Case of Restitution

Lucy, when a servant in a Jewish merchant's house, made a false statement before an insurance adjuster, which now troubles her conscience. A fire had broken out in an out-house, and in order that he might collect a larger sum, her master falsely declared that a quantity of clothing had burned, and he induces his clerk and Lucy to confirm his statement. The merchant is now a bankrupt, the clerk in comfortable circumstances, Lucy still without means anda servant in another family. The confessor imposes upon her the duty of restitution, because neither the merchant nor the clerk will make it. Lucy has nothing, and moreover, is not aware of the amount or to which company to make the restitution. The confessor promises to make inquiries and to let her know the result. Meanwhile he has scruples, and he asks whether he has acted correctly.

The obligation of Lucy to make restitution is plain in the case under consideration, and she shares this obligation with the clerk. One witness would not have sufficed, and Lucy therefore is made jointly responsible for the whole amount. If the merchant makes no restitution then Lucy and the clerk must refund the money with the right, of course, to make Levi reimburse them; should the latter be without means, Lucy must bear half of the amount, the clerk being answerable for the other half; the latter not paying, this part too would fall upon Lucy, of course, with the right of seeking indemnity from the clerk. So, therefore, the decision of the confessor is right in principle. Now let us see whether his practical proceeding is to be sanctioned.

First of all it appears to us as not well, nor advisable in general, to undertake such an inquiry. There is always present the danger to the seal of Confession. Moreover, the penitent's ready acquiescence presumed, the matter is an unpleasant one and may lead to unforeseen complications.

There is, moreover, no necessity for such inquiry in our case. Lucy is without means, and can therefore not make restitution. Indeed, a way is easily found out of the difficulty.

It is here the question of making restitution to an insurance company. These companies exist and prosper by the premiums of the insured. The rate of premium is determined by the probable. aver ages of fires, without regard as to whether a fire is incendiary or not. The company rightfully seeks by clauses and searching examination to avoid fraudulent claims, but can not possibly prevent all fraud on the part of the insured. Hence in fixing the rate of premiums the company takes into account all these circumstances. It follows that the insured by their premiums are really made to pay for the fraudulent claims, and they consequently are the ones injured by fraud.

Restitution is therefore really due to those paying the premiums— the insured. The number of the latter, however, is so great that only an infinitesimal part is borne by the individual. Their names are unknown. Therefore it appears that restitution in our case may be turned over to the poor. By so viewing the case (cf. Lehmkuhl I. n, 34), the difficulty for Lucy is easily solved. She has the honest intention of making restitution, but through her poverty is unable to do so. For this reason the confessor may direct her to discharge her duty by giving alms to the poor, of which she herself is one, and thus to pacify her conscience. The merchant and the clerk, of course, remain under obligation of restitution.