Dobbs v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 January 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 100.,100. |
| Citation | 127 A. 209 |
| Parties | DOBBS v. NEW AMSTERDAM CASUALTY CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action by Samuel B. Dobbs against the New Amsterdam Casualty Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Walter S. Keown, of Camden, for appellant.
Lewis Starr, of Camden, for respondent.
This cause was tried at Camden county circuit by the circuit court judge, without a jury, upon a stipulation of facts.
On July 20, 1921, a domestic servant of respondent stole $60 in money and a diamond ring worth $600, said articles being taken out of a hand bag hanging in a closet in a living room of respondent's dwelling house. There was no evidence of felonious entry of the premises by force and violence. Immediately after the theft respondent notified the police authorities, and filed a proof of loss with appellant as required by the terms of a policy of insurance of appellant held by respondent.
After appellant was notified of the theft it investigated the circumstances concerning it, and the value of the ring which was stolen, and the agent of appellant then discussed two propositions of settlement with respondent: (1) That it would pay for amount of cash stolen $50 and $550 for the ring; or, (2) would pay $50 for cash stolen, and replace the ring stolen with a similar one. Respondent notified appellant's agent that he would accept the first offer of $600 cash. Thereupon appellant drew a voucher to the order of respondent for $600, and, in doing so, discovered it had two policies issued to respondent; the first covering loss by burglary, theft, and larceny on respondent's Haddonfield home, and the second being the one in suit on respondent's Atlantic City home.
Appellant then notified respondent that the loss involved in this suit, having taken place in his Atlantic City home, was not a burglary loss, and therefore not covered by its policy. The proposition to pay $600 in settlement was made by appellant after it had been advised that the theft of the money and ring was from the interior of respondent's dwelling, by a domestic servant, who did not make felonious entry into the premises by actual force and violence.
Respondent's complaint consisted of two counts. The first sought to recover upon the policy, and the second upon the alleged agreement to compromise and settle. The court below found in favor of respondent upon the second count. Such finding, we conclude, was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
De Caro v. De Caro
...71 A. 234, 74 A. 668 (E. & A.1908); Worcester Loom Co. v. Heald, 78 N.J.L. 172, 72 A. 421 (Sup.1909); Dobbs v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 101 N.J.L. 176, 127 A. 209 (E. & A.1924); General Accident Fire, etc., Co. Ltd. v. Batterson, 14 N.J.Super. 436, 82 A.2d 490 (Ch.Div.1951). Two, it was ......
-
Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Yellen, A--367
...Co. v. Lahiff, 218 Wis. 457, 261 N.W. 11, 13 (Sup.Ct.1935). The cases in this State applying this rule, Dobbs v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 101 N.J.L. 176, 127 A. 209 (E. & A.1925) (where question arose on an action by assured to compel performance by company of agreement to settle claim);......
-
Young v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...satisfaction of his claim at the hands of the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund Board. We do not regard Dobbs v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 101 N.J.L. 176, 127 A. 209 (E. & A. 1925), or General Accident Fire, etc., Corp., Ltd., v. Batterson, 14 N.J.Super. 436, 82 A.2d 490 (Ch.Div. 1951),......
- First Caldwell Oil Co. v. Hunt