General Acc. Fire & Life Assur. Corp. v. Azar

Citation119 S.E.2d 82,103 Ga.App. 215
Decision Date08 February 1961
Docket NumberNo. 1,No. 38525,38525,1
PartiesGENERAL ACCIDENT FIRE AND LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION et al. v. Nick AZAR et al
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals (Georgia)

Syllabus by the Court

1. Evidence that children were throwing rocks on the roof of a building, followed by water leakage causing damage, is sufficient to support a jury's finding of loss under an insurance policy insuring against loss caused by vandalism and malicious mischief.

2. An erroneous instruction as to the measure of damages under an insurance policy is harmless where the liquidated damages proved, and uncontroverted, were the amount of the jury verdict.

3. Where the insurer had reasonable grounds for defending the case, there is no bad faith so as to allow an award for statutory damages and attorney's fees.

4. Where the petition charges that the insurer was furnished with proof of loss in accordance with the requirements of the policy and also charges an absolute refusal to pay the loss, no question of duplicity being raised, the insured may recover on the theory that the absolute refusal is a waiver of the policy requirement as to notice and preliminary proof of loss, and the insured is not then limited in his recovery to the amount claimed under the proof of loss which he did file.

5. Where there are two insurance policies on the same property containing apportionment clauses that the respective companies shall not be liable for a greater portion of any loss than the amount insured under the policy bears to all other insurance on the property, an instruction by the court that the companies insured their respective percentages, correctly calculated, is not error.

The same plaintiffs brought actions against the General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. and the Central Mutual Insurance Co. for losses allegedly sustained by acts of vandalism and malicious mischief. These cases were consolidated and tried together. The petitions include prayer for the total amount of the damage plus penalties and attorney's fees. The trial resulted in judgments against both insurers for the total amount of damages plus penalties and attorney's fees. The defendant insurers then filed joint motions for new trials on the general grounds, which were amended by adding the following special graounds:

Ground 4. That the court erred in failing to give the jury any measure of damage or any rules for determining the plaintiff's loss or damage which he is alleged to have sustained under the policies of each of the defendants.

Ground 5. That charging the jury as to loss occasioned by vandalism and malicious mischief was erroneous, prejudicial, and harmful, because the evidence, as a matter of law, did not warrant the submission of this issue to the jury, for there was no evidence from which the jury would be justified in finding that the damage was occasioned by vandalism and malicious mischief.

Ground 6. That the court erred in submitting the question of damages and attorney's fees to the jury, in view of the testimony of the defendant's witnesses which substantiated the defendant's contention that it had a reasonable ground for contesting the claims.

Ground 7. That the verdict against the Generla Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. in the amount of $1,737 was illegal and contrary to law because the plaintiff's proof of loss submitted to the company at first claimed $1,100 and then was amended to make the claim $1,223.33, and thus, in any event, the amount of the verdict in excess of the amount claimed in the proof of loss is illegal and contrary to law.

Ground 8. That the court erred in charging the jury, in substance, that the General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp.'s policy insured 71 percent of the loss and the Central Mutual Insurance Co.'s policy insured 29 percent of the loss, because the plaintiffs in their petition claim $718.83 from the Central Mutual Insurance Co. and $1,727.83 from the other company in both cases, plus penalties and attorney's fees, and, further, that the court did not inform the jury that it was at all times limited to the amounts claimed in the sworn proof of loss, and that the jury could not find an amount in excess of the amount claimed in the proof of loss.

The trial court overruled these motions, to which the defendants excepted.

Dudley Cook, Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.

Moise, Post & Gardner, Albert G. Norman, Jr., Atlanta, for defendants in error.

BELL, Judge.

1. The first contention of the insurers, as raised by both the general grounds and special ground 5, is that the claimants' evidence utterly failed to establish that the damage was caused by malicious mischief and vandalism as defined in the insurance policy and by windstorm, all as alleged in the petitions. It appears that there is no serious contention that the damage was caused by windstorm, but rather that the damage was caused by malicious mischief and vandalism as defined in the policy. A search of the cases indicates that as applied to insurance policy coverage, the term, 'vandalism and malicious mischief,' has not been defined by the appellate courts in this state. In fact, there have been surprisingly few cases in the United States interpreting or defining this phrase.

The insurance policies sued upon contain identical definitions of the term as follows: 'Vandalism and malicious mischief: Applies only in consideration of additional premium shown on the first page of this policy and only when extended coverage is also made effective--1. In consideration of vandalism and malicious mischief premium shown on the first page of this policy and subject to: (a) the provisions of this policy of fire insurance; (b) the extended coverage provisions and; (c) those of the Vendalism and malicious mischief (hereinafter referred to as 'provisions'); the coverage under said extended coverage is hereby extended to include direct loss to the described property from vandalism and malicious mischief. 2. The term 'Vandalism and malicious mischief' as used herein is restricted to and includes only wilful or malicious physical injury to or destruction of the described property. 3. When this policy covers direct loss to the described property, this company shall not be liable under these provisions for any loss (a) to glass (other than glass building blocks) constituting a part of the building; (b) by pilferage, theft, burglary or alrceny, except loss by wilful or malicious physical injury to or destruction of a building described and covered hereunder; (c) by explosion, rupture or bursting of (1) steam boilers, steam pipes, steam turbines, steam engines; or (2) rotating parts of machinery caused by centrifugal force; if owned by, leased by or actually operated under the control of the insured; (d) from depreciation, delay, deterioration or loss of market; nor unless specifically endorsed hereon in writing for any loss resulting from change in temperature or humidity.'

The historical definition of vandalism was derived from the destruction of many monuments of art and literature by the Vandals, who, in the fourth and fifth centuries, overran Gaul, Spain, and northern Africa, and, in 455 A.D., entered Italy and sacked Rome. Webster's New International Dictionary, 1951 edition. It originally meant the barbaric and reckless destroying or spoiling of something venerable, artistic, or beautiful. However, in ordinary usage the word is not limited to destruction of works of art, but has been broadened in its meaning to include the destruction of property generally. 91 C.J.S. Vandalism p. 802. Certainly it does not seem logical that the classic definition was intended by either the insurer or the insured in this case, for it is obvious that vandalism and malicious mischief insurance coverage on a warehouse for the storage of tobacco and miscellaneous sundries did not contemplate protecting works of art and historical monuments. The few cases which have interpreted insurance terms of this type have held similarly. Thus, 'We do not feel that we should here construe the word 'vandalism' in its narrowest sense, but hold that the proper construction should be such as is considered in the popular mind.' Great American Ins. Co. v. Dedmon, 260 Ala. 330, 70 So.2d 421, 423, 43 A.L.R.2d 599. The term 'malicious mischief' includes wilful physical injury to or destruction of property in general, real or personal, from ill will or resentment towards the owner or possessor. 54 C.J.S. Malicious Mischief §§ 1, 3. Most of the cases which have interpreted this term arose out of criminal prosecutons. However, the acts of defaulting purchasers in wilfully and systematically destroying and removing fixtures from buildings, breaking windows and frames, done in reckless disregard of the vendor's rights and with deliberate intent to injure the vendor and avenge the purchaser's ejectment, were held to constitute malicious mischief within a policy insuring property against vandalism and malicious mischief. Romanych v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., 8 Misc.2d 269, 167 N.Y.S.2d 398, 402. That acts of mischievous children may be vandalism, see Liberman v. American Lumbermans Mut. Casualty Co., 203 Misc. 816, 120 N.Y.S.2d 43.

In the present case the evidence, concisely stated, was that people were heard walking on the roof of the warehouse and banging noises were heard, whereupon the proprietor sent his janitor up to see what the commotion was. The janitor testified that the day before the leaks appeared in the ceiling he had run four of five children off the roof, that they were throwing rocks and running over the building, and that some of the rocks were as big as half a brick. The janitor then went on the roof and told the children to get off, whereupon he took the bricks and cleared off...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hill
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • 20 Enero 1966
    ...... to any specified hours, but were general. .         When the owner of the car, ... an act of vandalism is in General Accident Fire & Life Assur. Corp. v. Azar, 103 Ga.App. 215, ......
  • Cresthill Industries, Inc. v. Providence Washington Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 19 Julio 1976
    ...to the fourth floor of a building under construction, thereby causing substantial water damage)); and General Accident Fire & Life Assur. Corp. v. Azar (103 Ga.App. 215, 119 S.E.2d 82 (damages resulting from leakage through plaintiff's roof held compensable under vandalism and malicious mis......
  • Kimball v. Nationwide Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Colorado
    • 11 Abril 2023
    ...was associated with the wanton or senseless destruction of art and monuments. See General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Azar, 119 S.E.2d 82, 84 (Ga.App. 1961); Ducote v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 130 So.2d 649, 652 (La. 1961) (“Originally [vandalism] signified the barbaric and......
  • Battishill v. Farmers Alliance Ins. Co., 28,812.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • 9 Enero 2006
    ...issue is how a reasonable insured would understand the term at the time of purchase. See, e.g., Gen. Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Azar, 103 Ga.App. 215, 119 S.E.2d 82, 85 (1961) ("Certainly it does not seem logical that the classic definition was intended by either the insurer or......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Personal Property Valuation In Georgia Following A Fire
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • 1 Junio 2022
    ...that the actual cost of such goods to the insured ‘would be at least their actual cash value’...(General Accident &c. Corp. v. Azar, 103 Ga. App. 215, 221, supra), actual cash value or fair market value is not necessarily limited to original cost.... The Georgia Supreme Court stated in Bran......

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