Mcclure v. Home Ins. Co. Of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 12 February 1919
• Docket Number: (No. 10161.)
• Citation: 98 S.E. 287
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: McCLURE. v. HOME INS. CO. OF NEW YORK.

98 S.E. 287

McCLURE.

v.HOME INS. CO. OF NEW YORK.

(No. 10161.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Feb. 12, 1919.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Anderson County; James E. Peurifoy, Judge.

Action by W. J. McClure against the Home Insurance Company of New York. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Bonham, Watkins & Allen, of Anderson, for appellant.

Watkins & Prince, of Anderson, for respondent.

HYDRICK, J. Tills was an action on a policy dated April 28, 1917, insuring plaintiff against damages caused by hail during that year to his crop of 300 acres of cotton to an amount not exceeding $25 per acre. On April 29th the crop on part of the land was damaged by hall to the extent of $190.73. That loss was adjusted and paid. On May 22d another hailstorm struck plaintiff's farm, and completely destroyed the crop on 200 acres, and damaged that on 100 acres to the extent of 40 per cent., as estimated and agreed upon by plaintiff and the agent of defendant who solicited plaintiff's application for the policy. According to this estimate, plaintiff's loss was $6,000—$5,000 on the 200 acres totally destroyed, and $1,000 on the 100 acres partially destroyed—and, according to plaintiff's testimony, the agent promised to send him a check within a few days for the amount of the loss so agreed upon. But, instead of sending the check, the company sent two other agents to appraise and adjust the loss. These agents offered plaintiff, first, $1,000, then $1,200, and finally $1,-792—offers which plaintiff declined to consider, and brought suit on the policy. The jury found a verdict in his favor for $5,809.-73, with interest from July 23, 1917, at 7 per cent, per annum. From judgment on the verdict, defendant appealed.

The first assignment of error is in allowing plaintiff to testify that the agent who solicited his application for the policy assured him that, in case of loss, he (the soliciting agent) would himself adjust it. Appellant contends that this testimony was in conflict with the written stipulations of the application and policy, and that it was prejudicial, as appeared from the attitude of plaintiff to the other agents of defendant who were sent to adjust the loss.

The objection and contention are untenable for several reasons: When the objection was interposed no specific ground of objec tion was stated. The court asked plaintiff's attorney what was the purpose of the testimony. His reply was: "To show the understanding as to how the loss...