Ash-Grove Lime & Portland Cement Co. v. Southern Sur. Co.
Decision Date | 25 May 1931 |
Parties | ASH-GROVE LIME AND PORTLAND CEMENT CO., A CORPORATION, RESPONDENT, v. SOUTHERN SURETY CO., A CORPORATION, APPELLANT |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County.--Hon. A. Stanford Lyon, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
C. A Randolph for respondent.
Burns & White for appellant.
Trimble P. J., absent.
This is an action to recover upon what is known as a "fleet" or "schedule" liability insurance policy.
Plaintiff is a corporation, duly organized under the law, having its principal offices at Kansas City, Missouri, and engaged in the manufacture and sale of lime, cement and other products, and in connection with the operation of its business, salesmen and other persons were employed and automobiles were owned and used in carrying on its business in the State of Missouri and elsewhere, including the States of Arkansas and Louisiana. Defendant also is a corporation, duly organized and existing under the law, and transacting a general casualty and surety business in the State of Missouri and other states, and is engaged in writing, among other forms of insurance, policies of liability insurance, protecting and indemnifying the owners of automobiles against liability for personal injuries and damage to property caused by the use, maintenance, ownership and operation of such automobiles.
On April 28, 1927, defendant issued a policy of insurance agreeing to indemnify plaintiff against loss by reason of liability imposed upon it by law for damages on account of bodily injuries accidentally sustained, including death resulting therefrom, subject to the exceptions, conditions and limitations stated therein. Attached thereto was a schedule of the automobiles operated by insured and covered by the policy. There was an indorsement on the policy providing for changes in the particular automobiles covered. The provisions applicable to this phase of the policy are as follows:
The policy also contained the following, designated as provision D.
The petition further alleges the accident was reported to defendant on November 5, 1927, with details and particulars; that defendant took charge of said claim on behalf of plaintiff, but that thereafter on about November 16, 1927, defendant denied liability under the policy as to said accident, death and claim, and that thereafter plaintiff handled and finally settled the case for $ 1,000, and $ 150 for expenses and attorney fees. It is alleged plaintiff "has done and performed all conditions required on its part to be performed according to the terms and provisions of said policy. " The policy is attached to the petition as exhibit "A." Judgment is asked in the sum of $ 1500, $ 500 for vexatious refusal to pay and $ 800 for attorney's fee, making a total of $ 2450, for interest at six per cent per annum from November 22, 1927, and for costs.
Defendant's first answer was a general denial. But a few months before the trial an amended answer was filed, admitting execution and delivery of the policy and setting up certain provisions thereof relating to exceptions and claims for property damage and to accidents occurring while engaged in racing, carrying passengers for hire, operation by persons under age, etc. The answer also sets up sections of the policy providing for automatic coverage for cars acquired by trade or purchase during the policy year, with provisions for making report thereof in thirty days, and paying an additional premium on a pro rata basis. The amended answer states no specific premium was paid to cover the Willys-Knight automobile and that the acquisition of such car was not reported to defendant within thirty days thereafter.
The reply to the amended answer pleaded with more particularity the acts of waiver it proposed to show under and by virtue of the "performance clause" referred to in the petition; states that, under the provisions of the policy, plaintiff was entitled to return of the unearned premium on the Dodge coupe, listed in the schedule attached to the policy, from date of sale of the same on June 11, 1927, if defendant did not intend to apply same on the Willys-Knight car for which the Dodge was traded on said date, since there was no further liability on the Dodge car after the exchange, and that the cancellation clause of the policy entitled plaintiff to a pro rata return of the premium; that defendant had retained such portion of the premium on the Dodge car. The reply further charges the insurance policy contained no provision for forfeiture in case insured failed to notify insurer of the exchange of automobiles within thirty days after such exchange; sets up other matter as constituting a waiver by insurer of failure to give such notice, and that insurer is estopped to assert a forfeiture by reason of its said acts, which were inconsistent with a claim of forfeiture and which acts misled insured to its prejudice. Judgment is prayed in the reply in accordance with the petition.
Upon the issues thus made the cause was tried to a jury, resulting in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walker to Use of Foristel v. American Auto. Ins. Co.
... ... L. R. 53 ... et seq.; Southern Surety Co. v. Heyburn, 234 Conn ... 739; 76 A ... 1103, ... 1114, 1115; Ash-Grove Lime & Port. Cement Co. v. Southern ... Surety ... Mo.App. 1215] In Ash-Grove Lime & Portland Cement Co. v ... Southern Surety Co., 225 ... ...
-
McQueeny v. National Fidelity Life Ins. Co.
... ... Assn., 35 S.W.2d 654; Great Southern L. Ins. Co. v ... Brooks, 151 S.W.2d 346; ... Co., 61 S.W.2d 704, 333 Mo. 191; Ash-Grove Lime & Portland Cement Co. v. Southern Surety ... ...
-
Soukop v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., Limited, of London, England
... ... 5 S.W.2d 648; Ashgrove & Co. v. Southern Surety Co., ... 225 Mo.App. 712, 39 S.W.2d 434; ... ...
-
Kelley v. United Mut. Ins. Ass'n
... ... Ins. Co., 97 S.W.2d 856; ... Ash Grove, etc., Co. v. Surety Co., 225 Mo.App. 712, ... ...