German Ins. Co. v. Brown

• Decision Date: 30 January 1895
• Parties: GERMAN INS. CO. v. BROWN.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

29 S.W. 313

GERMAN INS. CO. v. BROWN.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 30, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, Trimble county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by L. C. Brown against the German Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

McCain & Jackson, for appellant.

Peak &amp Zerfoss, for appellee.

PAYNTER J.

The appellee's house and certain personal property consisting of household goods, clothing, etc., was insured against loss or damage by fire or lightning by a policy of insurance, which had been delivered to him by the appellant German Insurance Company. The amount of insurance was $400 on the house, and $400 on the personal property. On the 1st of April, 1892, the house and much of the personal property were destroyed by fire, in no wise resulting from any negligence of appellee. As he was required to do by the terms of the policy, he notified appellant of his loss. Afterwards, he furnished appellant the necessary proofs of loss in the manner required by the policy, except that there is a question whether it was done within the 30 days after the loss, it being specified in the policy that such proofs were to be furnished within that time, and that no action should be maintained if it was not done. At any rate, the proofs were furnished the appellant three months before the suit was brought, appellant admitting it was done within 35 or 36 days after the fire.

Appellant failing to pay the loss occasioned by the fire, this action was instituted.

At the conclusion of the testimony of appellee, appellant asked the court to instruct the jury to find for it. This the court refused to do. The jury found a verdict for the appellee for $625, upon which the court rendered a judgment. The appellant filed grounds for a new trial, which the court overruled. In the grounds for a new trial appellant did not complain because of any instructions which had been given by the court to the jury, but only complained that the court erred in refusing to give the peremptory instruction which it asked. The court did not err in refusing this instruction. The execution of the policy, and the destruction of the property insured by fire, and the proofs of the loss, were admitted. Besides, this appellee had made all necessary proof before the jury which authorized the finding of a verdict for him. This instruction was evidently asked upon the hypothesis that the...