Goetz v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 11 October 1927 |
| Parties | GOETZ v. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; Walter Schinz, Judge.
Action by Julius J. Goetz, as trustee in bankruptcy of the A. H. Peterson Manufacturing Company, bankrupt, against the Hartford Fire Insurance Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.--[By Editorial Staff.]
January 31, 1924, the six several defendants each issued its separate policy of insurance, all with riders of similar tenor, to the A. H. Peterson Manufacturing Company, a Wisconsin corporation doing business in the city of Milwaukee, and having buildings, machinery, and equipment for the manufacture of electric drills.
April 20, 1924, the insured property was damaged by fire. In June, 1924, plaintiff, upon due proceedings, became trustee in bankruptcy of the said company.
This action was brought to enforce liability of the several defendants upon their respective policies, and it was determined upon the trial by special verdict, concerning which no question is here raised, that the production of goods by the Peterson Company would have been necessarily suspended following and consequent upon the fire for a period of 49 days; that such company would have derived no net profit on the production of goods by it during such period if there had not been such suspension of business; and that, if the production of goods had continued during such period, there would have been a consequent loss of $4,062.64; that the several items of fixed charges pertaining to the production of goods and expenses pertaining to the production thereof which were necessarily continued during such 49 days including interest, taxes, depreciation, wages, etc., aggregated $3,820.30. For such amount, less $126 for unpaid premiums, each defendant was adjudged to pay one-sixth.
Defendants appeal.Shaw, Muskat & Sullivan, of Milwaukee, for appellants.
Fish, Marshutz & Hoffman, of Milwaukee (I. A. Fish, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for respondent.
The liability of the defendants is dependent upon the riders, parts of their respective insurance policies; each such rider being therein described as “Use and Occupancy Form,” and as insurance “on the use and occupancy of * * * buildings, machinery, and equipment situated on” certain described real property.
The clause upon which, if at all, the liability must be predicated, reads as follows:
“The conditions of this contract are that, if the building described above, and machinery and equipment contained therein, be destroyed or damaged by fire occurring during the term of this policy so as to necessitate total or partialsuspension of business, this company shall be liable under this policy for the actual loss sustained, consisting of net profits of the business which is thereby prevented, and such fixed charges and expenses pertaining thereto as must necessarily continue during a total or partial suspension of business and such expenses as are necessarily incurred for the purpose of reducing the loss under this policy, for not exceeding such length of time * * * as shall be required, with the exercise of due diligence and dispatch, to rebuild, repair, or replace such part of said buildings and machinery and equipment as may be destroyed or damaged, subject, etc.”
It is not questioned but that at least two separate and distinct elements are recognized in this provision of the contract which may go to make up the “actual loss sustained” to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dictiomatic, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 93-2123-CIV.
...207, 422 A.2d 1078 (1980); Hampton Foods, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety, 787 F.2d 349 (8th Cir. 1986); Goetz v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 193 Wis. 638, 215 N.W. 440 (1927); Steel Products Co., Inc. v. Millers National Ins. Co., 209 N.W.2d 32 (Iowa 1973); Congress Bar & Restaurant, Inc. v.......
-
New England Gas & Elec. Ass'n v. Ocean Acc. & Guarantee Corp.
...National Ins. Co., 171 N.Y. 25, 63 N.E. 810; Nusbaum v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 276 Pa. 526, 120 A. 481; Goetz v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 193 Wis. 638, 215 N.W. 440.8 There is no contention that the time for the manufacture and instalment of the new spindle was unreasonable.9 As to loss und......
-
Hawkinson Tread Tire Service Co. v. Indiana Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. of Indianapolis, Ind., 42348
... ... the amount found by the trial court to have been the 'actual loss sustained,' indemnified by a fire insurance policy, plaintiff Hawkinson Tread Tire Service Company, a corporation, insured. The fire ... Caledonian Ins. Co. of Scotland, D.C., 52 F.2d 744; Goetz v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 193 Wis. 638, 215 N.W. 440 ... Defendant-insurer, ... ...
-
NATIONAL UN. FIRE INS. CO. v. Anderson-Prichard Oil Corp.
...Fire Ins. Co. v. Benedict Coal Corp., 4 Cir., 64 F.2d 347; Miller v. Hocking Glass Co., 6 Cir., 80 F.2d 436; Goetz v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 193 Wis. 638, 215 N.W. 440; National Filtering Oil Co. v. Citizens' Ins. Co., 106 N.Y. 535, 13 N.E. 337, 60 Am.Rep. 473. See also Annotation, 75 A.L.......