Agnew v. Sun Ins. Office

• Decision Date: 21 May 1918
• Citation: 167 N.W. 829,167 Wis. 456
• Parties: AGNEW v. SUN INS. OFFICE ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

167 Wis. 456

167 N.W. 829

AGNEW

v.SUN INS. OFFICE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

May 21, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; L. W. Halsey, Judge.

Action by Andrew D. Agnew against the Sun Insurance Office and others. Demurrer to complaint overruled, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Appeal from an order overruling a general demurrer to the complaint. The action is to recover on two fire insurance policies covering certain farm buildings owned by plaintiff. It appears by the complaint and map attached that there were five frame structures in the group of farm buildings on the plaintiff's farm, viz. a dwelling house, a horse barn, a cow barn, a hay barn, and a wagon shed with chicken coop attached, the same being used for hitching and feeding of horses and the housing of buggies, wagons, and farm machinery. The several buildings mentioned were detached each from the other. The wagon shed and chicken coop was 24 feet distant from the house and 58 feet distant from the cattle barn, and was not in any way attached to or connected with any other building. This building was burned and the action is to recover for its loss. It is not specifically named in either policy. In the Sun policy of $3,500 the sum of $2,200 is placed on the frame dwelling “and additions thereto,” $500 on the frame horse barn “and additions thereto,” $500 on the frame cow barn “and additions thereto,” and $300 on the frame hay barn “and additions thereto.” In the other policy of $1,000 the sum of $500 is placed on the frame cow barn “and additions thereto.” The trial court held that the wagon shed, though not physically connected with any other building, was included within the words “additions thereto,” and hence covered by the policies.Lines, Spooner & Quarles, of Milwaukee, for appellants.

Charles T. Hickox, of Milwaukee, for respondent.

WINSLOW, C. J. (after stating the facts as above).

Undoubtedly the words “additions thereto,” when used with reference to a building, ordinarily refer to some structure physically attached to or connected with the building itself. We think the word “additions” was so used in the policies before us with the idea of covering future enlargements. This seems to follow as a natural result from the fact that in the policies before us the various buildings insured are separately named, and a specific sum placed on each building and the “additions thereto.” Was the building destroyed an...