Craddock, Vinson & Co. v. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 October 1914
• Citation: Craddock, Vinson & Co. v. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co., 169 S.W. 1015, 160 Ky. 519 (Ky. Ct. App. 1914)
• Parties: CRADDOCK, VINSON & CO. v. CONNECTICUT FIRE INS. CO.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

169 S.W. 1015

160 Ky. 519

CRADDOCK, VINSON & CO. v. CONNECTICUT FIRE INS. CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 27, 1914

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hickman County.

Action by Craddock, Vinson & Co. against the Connecticut Fire Insurance Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

R. L Smith, of Clinton, for appellant.

Gus Thomas, of Mayfield, for appellee.

CARROLL J.

In August, 1912, the appellants purchased a traction engine water tank, separator, and two wind stackers for $250, for which sum they executed their note, the engine being valued by the seller at $200, and the balance of the property at $50. In September, 1912, they had this property insured in the appellee company for $955, distributed as follows: $530 on the engine; $60 on water tank; $200 on separator; and $165 on stackers. In December, 1912, the separator and the wind stackers were destroyed by fire, and to recover the insurance of $365 on the destroyed property this suit was brought.

For defense the appellee relied on certain clauses in the policy one of them stipulating that:

"This indemnity contract is based upon the representations contained in the application of even numbers herewith and which the assured has signed and permitted to be submitted to the company, and the amount insured on articles described in the policy are based on the size and age of each article, as stated by the assured in his application, and which is made a warranty and a part hereof. The assured waives the right to plead that he did not know what the application contained; and it is stipulated and agreed that, if any false statements are made in said application, then this entire policy shall be null and void."

In the application it was stipulated that:

"If the statements in this application are not true, the policy issued hereon will be void."

It was further averred that the company would not have taken a risk of any amount on the property destroyed if it had been in use more than seven years.

The application shows that the appellants, in answer to certain questions contained in the application, stated that the property had been bought from different parties; that the purchase price was $1,200, which was paid in cash; that the engine had been in use 7 years, and the separator and stackers had been in use 2 years. It was averred that each of these statements was false, and that the entire property had been in use about 12 years; that the purchase price was only $250, and that same was not paid in cash; that the property was not bought from different parties, but from one party.

In the reply it was sought to avoid the false statements in the application upon the ground, as stated, that:

"It is true that they signed the application set out in defendant's answer; but they deny that at the time they signed said application the statement was in said application that the purchase price of this outfit insured was $1,200, and that this was paid in cash. They say that at the time they signed said application the same was filled out by the agent of the defendants writing said policy, and the application therefor. And they deny that they stated to him that the purchase price of said

...