Boston Ins. Co. v. Kirby

Decision Date18 February 1926
Docket Number(No. 107.)
Citation281 S.W. 275
PartiesBOSTON INS. CO. et al. v. KIRBY.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Action by A. H. Kirby against the Boston Insurance Company and another. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants bring error. Judgment affirmed.

Thompson, Knight, Baker & Harris, of Dallas, for plaintiffs in error.

Kirby, King & Overshiner, of Abilene, and Mack & Mack, and H. K. Welch, all of Fort Worth, for defendant in error.

RIDGELL, J.

The appellee filed petition complaining of the Boston Insurance Company and of the Milwaukee Mechanics' Insurance Company, alleging as against each of said companies that he owned a dwelling house in Abilene, Tex., and that on January 23, 1924, while the policies were in force, the said house was damaged and injured by fire to the extent of $9,550; that the house was worth $10,000; and that plaintiff performed all the conditions of the policies of the respective companies. The damage claimed against the Milwaukee Mechanics' Insurance Company was $3,000, and against the Boston Insurance Company a like sum. Each of the defendants answered by plea in abatement, alleging that the plaintiff failed to agree with appellants as to the amount of the loss, whereupon it in good faith made written demand for appraisal as provided in the policy, which demand was refused by appellee. Appellants further answered subject to plea in abatement that they should neither be held liable for more than its pro rata portion of the loss, and alleged that plaintiff held $10,000 insurance, and in the event of liability, the liability of appellants should be no more than the provisions of the policy, and appellants further answered by general denial. The cause was submitted to a jury, and following the answers of the jury, the court entered judgment in favor of appellee, and this cause is now before this court by writ of error.

Propositions 1, 2, and 3 bearing on same matter will be treated together, and are as follows:

First. The provision of the policy relative to the fixing of the loss by appraisal is reasonable, valid, and enforceable.

Second. The plaintiff is not entitled to maintain his suit because of his refusal to accede to the demand of the defendants for an appraisal.

Third. The demand for appraisal having been made before anything was due under the policies, the same had to be acceded to and an award returned, before plaintiff could maintain a suit on the policies.

Each of the policies contained the following provisions:

"In the event of disagreement as to the amount of the loss, the same shall, as above provided, be ascertained by two competent and disinterested appraisers, the insured and this company each selecting one and the two so chosen shall first select a competent and disinterested umpire. The appraisers together shall then estimate and appraise the loss, stating separately the sound value and damage, and failing to agree shall submit their differences to the umpire and the award in writing of any two shall determine the amount of such loss."

The policy further provides:

"And the loss shall not become payable until sixty days after the ascertainment, estimate and satisfactory proof of the loss herein required have been received by this company, including an award by appraisers when appraisal has been required."

The policy further provides:

"No suit or action on this policy for the recovery of any claim shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity until after the full compliance by the insured with all the foregoing requirements."

"Said ascertainment or estimate shall be made by the insured and this company, or, if they differ, then by appraisers, as hereinafter provided, and, the amount of loss or damage having been thus determined, the sum for which the company is liable pursuant to this policy shall be payable sixty days after due notice, ascertainment, estimate and satisfactory proof of the loss have been received by this company in accordance with the terms of this policy."

The policy further provided that the assured —

"within ninety-one days after the fire, unless such time is extended in writing by this company, shall render a statement to this company, signed and sworn to by said insured, stating the knowledge and belief of the insured as to the time and origin of the fire; the interest of the insured and of all others in the property; the cash value of each item thereof and the amount of loss...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Davis v. Haslam Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 15 July 1948
    ...him to make a designation. The following decisions are suggestive: Jordan v. Friedman, 72 Cal.App. 726, 165 P.2d 728; Boston Ins. Co. v. Kirby, Tex.Civ.App., 281 S.W. 275; Frankfort Distilleries v. Burns Bottling Machine Works, 174 Md. 12, 197 A. 599; Alexander v. Good Marble & Tile Co., Te......
  • In re Universal Underwriters of Tex. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 6 May 2011
    ...(noting that the parties disputed whether it had been thirty-nine or seventy-two days from the date of disagreement); Boston Ins. Co. v. Kirby, 281 S.W. 275, 276 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1926, no writ) (noting that insurer waited fifty-eight days after receiving proof of loss to make demand f......
  • In re Allstate County Mut. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 29 August 2002
    ...writ dism'd by agr.); American Cent. Ins. Co. v. Terry, 298 S.W. 658, 659-660 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1927, no writ); Boston Ins. Co. v. Kirby, 281 S.W. 275, 276 (Tex.Civ.App.1926, no writ); Aetna Ins. Co. v. Shacklett, 57 S.W. 583, 583 (Tex.Civ.App.1900, no writ); American Fire Ins. Co. v.......
  • National Bulk Carriers v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • 11 September 1944
    ...precedent to the maintaining of an action in court. But this condition may be waived as a result of delay, Boston Insurance Co. v. Kirby, Tex.Civ.App., 281 S.W. 275; Talbert v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co., 167 La. 608, 120 So. 24; a failure to make an appraisal through no fault of the insure......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT