Delametter v. Home Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 30 January 1939
• Citation: 126 S.W.2d 262,233 Mo.App. 645
• Parties: SAM DELAMETTER, RESPONDENT, v. THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY A CORPORATION, APPELLANT
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

126 S.W.2d 262

233 Mo.App. 645

SAM DELAMETTER, RESPONDENT, v. THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY A CORPORATION, APPELLANT

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

January 30, 1939

Appeal from Circuit Court of Jackson County.--Hon. Daniel E. Bird Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Hogsett Murray, Trippe, Depping & Houts and C. R. Westmoreland for appellant.

(1) The trial court erred in refusing defendant's requested Instruction B in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence. (a) The collision and resulting collision damage was not the result of fire in the trailer. The subject of the insurance and therefore collision loss and damage is not recoverable under the fire policy in question. Exchange Bank v Insurance Co., 218 Mo.App. 587, 265 S.W. 855, 44 A. L R. 870, 65 A. L. R. 936; Eaken v. Insurance Co., 242 S.W. 426 (Mo. App.), 44 A. L. R. 870, 65 A. L. R. 936; Caballero & Basualdo v. Home Mut. Ins. Co., 15 La Ann. 217; Githens v. Great Amer. Ins. Co., 201 Iowa 266, 207 N.W. 243, 44 A. L. R. 863; Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. v. Mims, 226 S.W. 738 (Texas); Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. Currie, 234 S.W. 232 (Texas); Hall v. Insurance Co., 115 Tenn. 513, 92 S.W. 402, 112 Am. St. Rep. 870, 5 Ann. Cas. 779; Wheeler v. Phenix Ins. Co., 203 N.Y. 283, 96 N.E. 452, 38 L.R.A. (N. S.) 474; Miller v. London & Lancashire Fire Ins. Co., 41 Ill.App. 395; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Adams, 127 S.W. 1008 (Ky.); Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. v. Bergheim, 21 Colo.App. 527, 122 P. 812; Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Roost, 55 Ohio St. 581, 45 N.E. 1097, 36 L.R.A. 236; Hustace v. Phenix Ins. Co., 175 N.Y. 292, 67 N.E. 592, 62 L.R.A. 651; Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Bell, 151 Ga. 191, 106 S.E. 186, 13 A. L. R. 880; Renshaw v. Fireman's Ins. Co., 33 Mo.App. 394; Bird v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 224 N.Y. 47, 120 N.E. 86, 13 A. L. R. 875. (b) The small fire in the tractor prior to the collision was not the proximate cause for the loss. When the loss and damage is directly caused by collision, it is immaterial what caused the collision. 3 Joyce on Insurance, Paragraph 2882; Beem v. General Acc. Fire & Life Assur. Corp., 105 S.W.2d 956 (Mo. App.), l. c. 957-9; Miller v. London & Lancashire Fire Ins. Co., 41 Ill.App. 395; Bird v. St. Paul & Marine Ins. Co., 224 N.Y. 47, 120 N.E. 86, 13 A. L. R., l. c. 878; Roe & Kercheval v. Columbus Ins. Co., 17 Mo., l. c. 304; Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Roost, 55 Ohio St. 581, 45 N.E. 1097, 36 L.R.A. 236. The collision was not incidental to the fire in the tractor. Cova v. Bankers & Shippers Ins. Co., 100 S.W.2d 23 (Mo. App.); Roe & Kercheval v. Columbus Ins. Co., 17 Mo. 301, l. c. 305-6; Rider v. Syracuse Ry. Co., 171 N.Y. 139, 147, 63 N.E. 836, cited in Richards on Insurance (4 Ed.), Paragraph 262, page 433, footnote 48. Fire in the tractor was not the proximate cause of loss to the trailer, because the tractor was not the subject of the insurance. Exchange Bank v. Insurance Co., 218 Mo.App. 587, 265 S.W. 855; Eaken v. Insurance Co., 242 S.W. 426 (Mo. App.), 44 A. L. R. 870, 65 A. L. R. 936; Caballero & Basualdo v. Home Mut. Ins. Co., 15 La. Ann. 217; Githens v. Great Amer. Ins. Co., 201 Iowa 266, 207 N.W. 243, 44 A. L. R. 863; Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. v. Mims, 226 S.W. 738 (Texas); Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. Currie, 234 S.W. 232 (Texas); Hall v. Insurance Co., 115 Tenn. 513, 92 S.W. 402, 112 Am. St. Rep. 870, 5 Ann. Cas. 779; Wheeler v. Phenix Ins. Co., 203 N.Y. 283, 96 N.E. 452, 38 L.R.A. (N. S.) 474; Miller v. London & Lancashire Fire Ins. Co., 41 Ill.App. 395; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Adams, 127 S.W. 1008 (Ky.); Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. v. Bergheim, 21 Colo.App. 527, 122 P. 812; Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Roost, 55 Ohio St. 581, 45 N.E. 1097, 36 L.R.A. 236; Hustace v. Phenix Ins. Co., 175 N.Y. 292, 67 N.E. 592, 62 L.R.A. 651; Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Bell, 151 Ga. 191, 106 S.E. 186, 13 A. L. R. 880; Renshaw v. Fireman's Ins. Co., 33 Mo.App. 394; Bird v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 224 N.Y. 47, 120 N.E. 86, 13 A. L. R. 875. (c) Plaintiff pleaded a fire loss and proved a collision loss. Collision loss and damage is not recoverable under a fire policy unless the collision was caused by fire in the subject of the insurance. Exchange Bank v. Insurance Co., 218 Mo.App. 587, 265 S.W. 855; Eaken v. Insurance Co., 242 S.W. 426 (Mo. App.), 44 A. L. R. 870, 65 A. L. R. 936; Caballero & Basualdo v. Home Mut. Ins. Co., 15 La. Ann. 217; Githens v. Great Amer. Ins. Co., 201 Iowa 266, 207 N.W. 243, 44 A. L. R. 863; Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. v. Mims, 226 S.W. 738 (Texas); Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. Currie, 234 S.W. 232 (Texas); Hall v. Insurance Co., 115 Tenn. 513, 92 S.W. 402, 112 Am. St. Rep. 870, 5 Ann. Cas. 779; Wheeler v. Phenix Ins. Co., 203 N.Y. 283, 96 N.E. 452, 38 L.R.A. (N. S.) 474; Miller v. London & Lancashire Fire Ins. Co., 41 Ill.App. 395; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Adams, 127 S.W. 1008 (Ky.); Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. v. Bergheim, 21 Colo.App. 527, 122 P. 812; Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Roost, 55 Ohio St. 581, 45 N.E. 1097, 36 L.R.A. 236; Hustace v. Phenix Ins. Co., 175 N.Y. 292, 67 N.E. 592, 62 L.R.A. 651; Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Bell, 151 Ga. 191, 106 S.E. 186, 13 A. L. R. 880; Renshaw v. Fireman's Ins. Co., 33 Mo.App. 394; Bird v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 224 N.Y. 47, 120 N.E. 86, 13 A. L. R. 875. Recovery must be based on the cause of action alleged in the petition. Mathieson v. Railroad, 219 Mo., l. c. 552-3, 118 S.W. 9; Hill v. Rich Hill Coal Mining Co., 119 Mo. l. c. 30, 24 S.W. 223; Rhodes v. Holliday, 105 Mo. App., l. c. 314, 79 S.W. 1145. (2) The trial court erred in giving plaintiff's instruction No. 1, being an instruction for a verdict in plaintiff's favor. (a) The instruction erroneously permitted a recovery for collision loss and damage as a result of fire in the tractor, which was not the subject of the insurance. Exchange Bank v. Insurance Co., 218 Mo.App. 587, 265 S.W. 855; Eaken v. Insurance Co., 242 S.W. 426 (Mo. App.), 44 A. L. R. 870, 65 A. L. R. 936; Caballero & Basualdo v. Home Mut. Ins. Co., 15 La. Ann. 217; Githens v. Great Amer. Ins. Co., 201 Iowa 266, 207 N.W. 243, 44 A. L. R. 863; Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. v. Mims, 226 S.W. 738 (Texas); Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. Currie, 234 S.W. 232 (Texas); Hall v. Insurance Co., 115 Tenn. 513, 92 S.W. 402, 112 Am. St. Rep. 870, 5 Ann. Cas. 779; Wheeler v. Phenix Ins. Co., 203 N.Y. 283, 96 N.E. 452, 38 L.R.A. (N. S.) 474; Miller v. London & Lancashire Fire Ins. Co., 41 Ill.App. 395; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Adams, 127 S.W. 1008 (Ky.); Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. v. Bergheim, 21 Colo.App. 527, 122 P. 812; Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Roost, 55 Ohio St. 581, 45 N.E. 1097, 36 L.R.A. 236; Hustace v. Phenix Ins. Co., 175 N.Y. 292, 67 N.E. 592, 62 L.R.A. 651; Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Bell, 151 Ga. 191, 106 S.E. 186, 13 A. L. R. 880; Renshaw v. Fireman's Ins. Co., 33 Mo.App. 394; Bird v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 224 N.Y. 47, 120 N.E. 86, 13 A. L. R. 875. (b) The instruction erroneously submitted to the jury the question of whether fire was the proximate cause of the loss and there was no evidence that the loss was caused by fire. Exchange Bank v. Insurance Co., 218 Mo.App. 587, 265 S.W. 855; Eaken v. Insurance Co., 242 S.W. 426 (Mo. App.), 44 A. L. R. 870, 65 A. L. R. 936; Caballero & Basualdo v. Home Mut. Ins. Co., 15 La. Ann. 217; Githens v. Great Amer. Ins. Co., 201 Iowa 266, 207 N.W. 243, 44 A. L. R. 863; Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. v. Mims, 226 S.W. 738 (Texas); Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. Currie, 234 S.W. 232 (Texas); Hall v. Ins. Co., 115 Tenn. 513, 92 S.W. 402, 112 Am. St. Rep. 870, 5 Ann. Cas. 779; Wheeler v. Phenix Ins. Co., 203 N.Y. 283, 96 N.E. 452, 38 L.R.A. (N. S.) 474; Miller v. London & Lancashire Fire Ins. Co., 41 Ill.App. 395; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Adams, 127 S.W. 1008 (Ky.); Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. v. Bergheim, 21 Colo.App. 527, 122 P. 812; Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Roost, 55 Ohio St. 581, 45 N.E. 1097, 36 L.R.A. 236; Hustace v. Phenix Ins. Co., 175 N.Y. 292, 67 N.E. 592, 62 L.R.A. 651; Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Bell, 151 Ga. 191, 106 S.E. 186, 13 A. L. R. 880; Renshaw v. Fireman's Ins. Co., 33 Mo.App. 394; Bird v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 224 N.Y. 47, 120 N.E. 86, 13 A. L. R. 875. (c) The instruction departed from and was not based on the pleaded cause of action. The instruction was based on the reply and not the petition. The law is well settled that recovery must be based on the cause of action pleaded in the petition. Mathieson v. Railroad, 219 Mo., l. c. 552-3, 118 S.W. 9; Hill v. Rich Hill Coal Mining Co., 119 Mo., l. c. 30, 24 S.W. 223; Rhodes v. Holliday, 105 Mo. App., l. c. 314, 79 S.W. 1145. (d) The instruction was erroneous in that it ignored the defense of false and fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of the assured (plaintiff) after the loss and the defense that the assured, after discovering the peril, wrongfully and negligently failed to protect, save and salvage the insured property from loss. These were valid defenses. State ex rel. Arel v. Farringtion, 272 Mo. 157; Richards on the Law of Insurance (4 Ed.), Paragraph 237, page 370; Yellin v. National Security Co., 282 S.W. 520, l. c. 521 (Mo. App.); 6 Couch, Paragraph 1492, page 5350. An instruction for a verdict which ignores defenses pleaded and proven is reversible error. Pence v. Kansas City Laundry Service Co., 332 Mo. 930, 939-940; Luft v. Strobel, 322 Mo. 955, 977-978; Austin v. Transit Co., 115 Mo.App. 146, 152; Jones v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co., 50 S.W.2d 217, 220; State ex rel. North British & Mercantile Ins. Co. v. Cox, 307 Mo. 194, 197; Finley v. Insurance Co., 299 S.W. 1107, 1111; Smith v. Southern, 210 Mo.App. 288, 292; Tinkle v. Railway Co., 212...