Alabama Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Minchener
| Decision Date | 10 June 1902 |
| Citation | 133 Ala. 632,32 So. 225 |
| Parties | ALABAMA MUT. FIRE INS. CO. v. MINCHENER. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Pike county; John P. Hubbard, Judge.
Action by Joseph Minchener, Sr., against the Alabama Mutual Fire Insurance Company, of Troy, Ala. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
This was an action brought by the appellee against the appellant and counted upon a fire insurance policy. The defendant pleaded the general issue.
The policy of insurance described the property insured as "the one-story, shingle-roof, frame building, and adjoining communicating additions thereto, including foundations, which is occupied as a dwelling house, and situated on the east side of Minchener street in Troy Alabama."
It was shown, that the duly constituted general agent of the defendant company, with authority to make contracts for the company and issue policies of insurance at Troy, Ala., duly executed and delivered to plaintiff the policy sued on, on the day of its date, for which he was paid the premium; that on the date of the issuance of the policy, the plaintiff was the owner of the property insured, which was known as the C W. Williams place; that no written application was made by plaintiff for insurance thereon, but it was described by the plaintiff to the agent by pointing it out and showing it to him.
The plaintiff testified that the house was on a street in the city of Troy, on the east side of his, the plaintiff's mill in said city, which street he had heard called by the name of Lake street and also by the name of Minchener street, and was most commonly called Lake street; that plaintiff had nothing to do with the description of the property further than to point it out to the agent, who was present and saw it and who wrote out the description of the property as it appears in the policy and handed it to plaintiff, who retained it, not knowing the particular description employed, until the fire occurred. It was further shown, that plaintiff had, theretofore, had his lands in Troy surveyed and a map made of them, which he filed and had recorded in the probate office of said county of Pike, in all respects according to the statute; and according to said map, the lot on which the C. W. Williams house is located,--said house being the one insured and destroyed by fire,--is located on Lake street; that according to said map, there is a Minchener street in said city which lies east of Lake street, and plaintiff owned a house on the east side of that street of the value of about $250, while the value of the one destroyed by fire was shown to be $600, etc.
There was no controversy, as the bill of exceptions states, of the right of plaintiff to recover, if he is allowed to show that the Williams lot was the one insured and intended to be insured by plaintiff and defendant's agent.
The court at the request of the plaintiff gave the general affirmative charge in its behalf. To the giving of this charge the defendant duly excepted, and also excepted to the court's refusal to give the general affirmative charge requested by it.
There were verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals, and assigns as error the several rulings of the trial court to which exceptions were reserved, and the rulings of the court upon the charges asked.
Foster, Samford & Carroll, for appellant.
E. R. Brannen, for appellee.
A policy of insurance, should designate the property, so that the subject insured and the risk may be determined. In case of doubt as to what property is covered, the construction will be against the insurer. 2 Joyce, Ins. § 1690.
Touching mistakes in the description of property insured, Mr. May observes, that "knowledge of the company or its agents of the untruthfulness of the statements as to the distance of neighboring buildings, or of inaccuracy or incompleteness in the description of the property, at the time when the insurance is effected, by the general concurrence of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jersey Ins. Co. v. Roddam, 6 Div. 199
...Ins. Co. v. Flippo, 236 Ala. 116, 181 So. 117. A case presenting a striking analogue and nearest in point is Alabama Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Minchener, 133 Ala. 632, 32 So. 225, where this court held in effect that when an insured, who has contracted for insurance, informs the agent of the ......
-
Money v. Money
... ... will reads: ... "State ... of Alabama, Henry Co. Abbeville, Ala. Aug. 11th, 1934 ... 328, 22 So. 154; Alabama Mutual ... Fire Ins. Co. v. Minchener, 133 Ala. 632, 32 So. 225 ... ...
-
Allen v. Genry
...leased is ambiguous or doubtful, parol evidence is admissible to make the description certain. 24 Cyc. 916; Alabama Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Minchener, 133 Ala. 632, 32 So. 225; Maloney v. Smith, 16 Ala.App. 595, 80 So. It further appears that defendant's witness Mrs. Hisey, on her direct exam......
-
Barnes v. Atlantic & Pac. Life Ins. Co. of America, CER--3
...to presume that such material facts as are made known to him, are known to the principal . . ..'' Alabama Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Minchener, 133 Ala. 632, 635, 32 So. 225, 226 (1901). Under that rule an insured would be justified in relying on the insurer's agent to correctly inform th......