Bruff v. Northwestern Mut. Fire Ass'n
| Citation | 109 P. 280,59 Wash. 125 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Decision Date | 21 June 1910 |
| Parties | BRUFF v. NORTHWESTERN MUT. FIRE ASS'N. |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; Ralph Kauffman Judge.
Action by J. H. Bruff against the Northwestern Mutual Fire Association. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Shank & Smith, Wende & Taylor, and Lee C. Delle, for appellant.
Henry J. Snively, for respondent.
This action was commenced by J. H. Bruff against the Northwestern Mutual Fire Association, a corporation, to recover $500 on an insurance policy. From a verdict and judgment in plaintiff's favor, the defendant has appealed.
The policy was written on personal property located in respondent's residence in North Yakima. He alleged ownership of the property in himself and its destruction by fire. Appellant affirmatively pleaded that the fire was of incendiary origin; that on June 13, 1907, respondent caused the dwelling house and contents to be hurned, so as to procure the insurance, and now contends that the trial court erred in withdrawing this affirmative defense from the consideration of the jury.
The respondent, a single man, lived alone in a one-story four-room dwelling house in which the insured personal property was located. The policy was for $500, and he held a separate policy on the building. In his proofs of loss he presented a claim for personal wearing appearel and two Turkish covers amounting to $454.50, as follows:
36 suits of underwear
$ 77 50
33 shirts .....................
33 00
14 fancy vests ................
49 00
7 suits of clothing .........
145 00
3 pairs of odd pants .........
15 00
6 night gowns ................
15 00
6 gowns.-sleeping .............
6 00
1 doz. silk handkerchiefs .....
9 00
2 Turkish covers .............
83 00
-------
$454 50
He testified that their original cost was $638.00; that in December, 1906, he purchased 36 suits of underwear, 24 silk and mohair shirts, 3 suits of clothes, and 9 fancy vests in Spokane, on one and the same date, but was unable to tell the merchant or merchants from whom the purchases were made. He further testified that the greater portion of this wearing apparel was upon a clothesline or rope stretched diagonally across the particular room where the greatest destruction by fire occurred; that he was at the house a short time during the early hours of the evening preceding the fire; that he passed the night sleeping with a friend in another part of the city; and that he learned of the fire the next morning. There was evidence that the fire occurred about 3:55 a. m.; that immediately after it was under control the firemen discovered in an inclosed hall a fivegallon can containing coal oil; that there was a stoneware slop jar in the hall partially filled with water, with coal oil on the top of the water; that an ordinary dresser was in an adjoining bedroom in the upper drawer of which were two shirts saturated with coal oil, and some paper also saturated with coal oil; that the dresser drawers were covered with coal oil; that in the bedroom was another slop jar containing water and coal oil; that at the time of the fire no one was in the house; that the doors were securely fastened; that the window shades in the front room were drawn and tacked down, and that the fire was what the firemen termed a 'flash fire,' indicating that it was of incendiary origin. There was no evidence that any other person had been in or about the building after respondent left it during the preceding evening.
The circumstances shown strongly indicate that the house had been deliberately and purposely prepared for a sudden destructive, and well-timed conflagration. Respondent held separate insurance policies on the house and its contents, and was the only person in a position to recover for losses resulting from the fire. There was sufficient evidence, if accepted and credited by the jury, to sustain them in finding that the fire was of incendiary origin, and that some one who had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Natalini v. Nw. Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 42678.
...v. Bader, 285 Mass. 574, 189 N. E. 590;Smith v. California Ins. Co., 85 Me. 348, 27 A. 191;Bruff v. Northwestern Mut. Fire Ass'n, 59 Wash. 125, 109 P. 280, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 1138. But overinsurance, in and of itself, would not be sufficient to warrant a finding that the insured caused the fi......
-
Natalini v. Northwestern Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
......Bader, 285 Mass. 574, 189 N.E. 590;. Smith v. California Ins. Co., 85 Me. 348, 27 A. 191;. Bruff v. Northwestern Mut. Fire Ass'n, 59 Wash. 125, 109 P. 280, Ann.Cas. 1912A, 1138.But overinsurance, ......
-
St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Salovich
...the evidence" standard rather than the "clear and convincing evidence" standard. In so doing, we relied upon Bruff v. Northwestern Mut. Fire Ass'n, 59 Wash. 125, 109 P. 280 (1910), in which the Supreme Court rejected an insured's contention that a defense of incendiarism must be established......
-
Weiner v. Ætna Ins. Co.
...may by their number and joint operation be entirely sufficient to establish the factum probandum.” [3] 3. In Bruff v. Northwestern Mutual Fire Ass'n, 59 Wash. 125, 109 P. 280, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 1138, the fireman designated it as a flash fire. No one had been in the place since the defendant ......