177 S.W. 792 (Mo.App. 1915), Weston v. American Insurance Co.
|Citation:||177 S.W. 792, 191 Mo.App. 282|
|Opinion Judge:||ELLISON, P. J.|
|Party Name:||COOPER WESTON, Respondent, v. AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant|
|Attorney:||Fyke & Snider for appellant. J. H. McVey and Park & Brown for respondent.|
|Case Date:||June 14, 1915|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Missouri|
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.--Hon. A. C. Southern, Judge.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
[191 Mo.App. 283]
--Plaintiff's action is based on a policy of fire insurance covering personal property in the sum of fifteen hundred dollars. The judgment in the trial court was for her.
It appears that plaintiff owned household goods in a residence on Prospect avenue in Kansas City, Missouri, and she had a policy of insurance on them for $ 300 for a term of three years. In about one year thereafter she concluded to move to 4605 State Line street. She went to defendant's agent and informed him of her intention to move to the latter street and that she desired to increase her insurance to $ 1500. He cancelled the old policy, allowed her for the unearned premium and issued the new policy, locating the property as in the house on State Line street, to which it was to be removed. A few days thereafter she removed the property. Shortly after her removal she acquired other property, notably a piano, which she valued at $ 300. In about one month after her removal, the house and her property were totally destroyed by fire.
In our opinion the policy attached as valid insurance in the new location as soon as it was removed there. The agent knew of the old policy and of the intention to remove to another place and consented to it, and increased the insurance in a policy which stated the property to be in the new location. The insurance was in fact made of property situated in a certain building, and though it was not there at the date of the policy, it was to be immediately taken there. The following cases, while not like this in all particulars, sustain plaintiff's case: Pollock v. Ins. Co., 127 Mich. 460, 473, 86 N.W. 1017; Cooper v. Ins. Co., 96 Minn. 81, 104 N.W. 687; Williamsburg Ins. Co. v. Cary, 83 Ill. 453; Hulen v. Ins. Co., 80 Kan. 127, 102 P. 52.
We are furthermore of the opinion that the policy became a valued policy in the new location for the sum insured. There is no reason why the law as to valued [191 Mo.App...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP