City of New York Fire Ins. Co. v. Chapman

Decision Date26 March 1935
Docket NumberNo. 5344.,5344.
Citation76 F.2d 76
PartiesCITY OF NEW YORK FIRE INS. CO. et al. v. CHAPMAN et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

H. O. Wolfe and F. J. Hart, both of Milwaukee, Wis., for appellants.

Harry L. Butler and Byron H. Stebbins, both of Madison, Wis., for appellees.

Before EVANS, SPARKS, and FITZHENRY, Circuit Judges.

FITZHENRY, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of appellees upon their motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that appellants' answer did not constitute any defense to the complaint. Appellants assign as error the ruling of the court granting appellees judgment on the pleadings and refusing judgment in favor of appellants in accordance with the prayer contained in their answer.

Appellee, Frances B. Chapman, was the owner of a building in Madison, Wis., on which she carried insurance against loss by fire in the appellant companies. The insurance contract was the standard statutory form, provided by section 203.06 of the Wisconsin Statutes, in the amount of $18,500. Appellee Anchor Savings Building & Loan Association held a mortgage on the property, and each of the policies in question contained a mortgage clause making the loss payable to the mortgagee.

A fire occurred in the property on December 29, 1932, doing damage to the extent of 66.486 per cent. An ordinance of the city of Madison, in effect at the time of the issuance of the policies and thereafter, up to and including the time of the fire, provided that wooden buildings within the fire limits, which were damaged to the extent of 50 per cent. or more of their value, should not be repaired but demolished upon the order of the commissioner of buildings. In accordance with this ordinance, the commissioner ordered the building demolished.

The provisions of the Wisconsin statute pertinent to the question before us are as follows:

"Section 203.01. * * * In consideration of the stipulations herein named and of ...... dollars premium does insure ...... and legal representatives, to the extent of the actual cash value (ascertained with proper deductions for depreciation) of the property at the time of loss or damage, but not exceeding the amount which it would cost to repair or replace the same with material of like kind and quality within a reasonable time after such loss or damage, without allowance for any increased cost of repair or reconstruction by reason of any ordinance or law regulating construction or repair * * * against all direct loss and damage by fire. * * *

"Section 203.21. Whenever any policy insures real property and the property is wholly destroyed, without criminal fault on the part of the insured or his assigns, the amount of the policy shall be taken conclusively to be the value of the property when insured and the amount of loss when destroyed."

Appellants demanded an appraisal which was participated in by appellees under reservation of their right to assert that the appraisal was of no effect since the property was wholly destroyed within the meaning of 203.21, Wisconsin Statutes, so that the amount of insurance written in the policies was conclusive as to the true value. The appraisers found that the sound value of the property before the fire was $16,150, and the amount of the loss was $10,747.48. Appellants duly offered appellees their respective shares of the loss as fixed by the appraisers, which was refused. Appellees demanded from each of appellants the full face amount of their respective policies. Their demand was refused. All of these facts were set forth in the complaint. The answer of appellants contended that the extent of their liability was determined by the amount of the appraisers' award. Appellees moved for judgment on the pleadings, which was granted, and appellants brought this appeal.

The sole issue is whether the property insured was "wholly destroyed" within the meaning of the Wisconsin Valued Policy Law...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Stahlberg v. Travelers Indem. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 30, 1978
    ...statutes. See, e. g., Ollie v. Security Mut. Underwriters, 235 F.2d 932 (4th Cir. 1956) (South Carolina); City of New York Fire Ins. Co. v. Chapman, 76 F.2d 76 (7th Cir. 1935) (Wisconsin, valued policy statute); Rutherford v. Royal Ins. Co., 12 F.2d 880 (4th Cir. 1926) (North Carolina); Fid......
  • Danzeisen v. Selective Ins. Co. of America
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • March 7, 1997
    ...49 A.L.R. 817 (1927); Rutherford v. Royal Insurance Co., 12 F.2d 880, 49 A.L.R. 814 (4th Cir.1926). Cf., City of New York Fire Ins. Co. v. Chapman, 76 F.2d 76 (7th Cir.1935). [Id. at 544, 152 A.2d We conclude, as we did in Feinbloom, that no language of the insurance policy at issue exclude......
  • Stevick v. Northwest G. F. Mut. Ins. Co., 9608
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • June 28, 1979
    ...v. Carmen Holding Co., 220 A.2d 778 (Del.1966); Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Corp. v. Mondzelewski, supra; City of New York Fire Ins. Co. v. Chapman, 76 F.2d 76 (7th Cir. 1935); Scanlan v. Home Ins. Co., 79 S.W.2d 186 (Tex.Civ.App.1935); Dinneen v. American Ins. Co., 98 Neb. 97, 152 N.W. 3......
  • Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Corp. v. Mondzelewski
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Delaware
    • July 7, 1955
    ...is measured by the face value of the policy as for total fire destruction. Sec. 203.21, Stats.Wis., 1937; City of New York Fire Insurance Co. v. Chapman, 7 Cir., 76 F.2d 76. Accordingly, after the order to abate was made, Drefahl made a claim against the plaintiff for $5,000, basing his cla......
  • 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