Group Von Graupen v. Employers Mutual Fire Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 November 1966 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 219-65. |
| Parties | N. Edward GROUP VON GRAUPEN, Plaintiff, v. EMPLOYERS MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF WAUSAU, WISCONSIN, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Reuben Barnett, San Juan, P. R., for plaintiff.
Antonio R. Barcelo, Jr., San Juan, P. R., for defendant.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This is an action to recover damages for losses incurred as a result of a fire. The parties have stipulated that:
1. The Plaintiff Group was the owner of the premises and property described in the insurance contract as "dwelling of concrete and wood with galvanized iron roof" located at "Carretera 165-Km.4-Hm.3, Toa Alta-Corozal."
2. A fire occurred during the night of November 21-22, 1964, which completely destroyed the dwelling and its contents except for the foundations and some walls or parts of walls.
3. The Defendant had duly issued to Plaintiff its policy of insurance, Homeowners Policy No. H326700277250, covering said dwelling and its contents.
4. Said policy was in force at time of happening of the fire.
5. Said policy, by its terms, covered seven hazards, of which four are pertinent to the present action:
(a) Dwelling .. $15,000
(b) Appurtenant Private
Structures .. $1,500
(c) Unscheduled Personal
Property .. $6,000
(d) Additional Living Expenses
.. $3,000
6. Said policy contract is for a term of 3 years, beginning October 1, 1964, with a premium of $536.00, payable in three annual installments, of which the first installment of $190.00 was paid to defendant insurance company and the plaintiff is entitled to recover his loss and damage.
7. Plaintiff complied with the policy provisions set forth in lines 90-122 of page 2 thereof as to notice. He furnished an inventory; he showed cash value of losses claimed; he submitted himself to examinations under oath by the defendant insurance company. The Proof of Loss was in the amount of $20,150.00. The claim was for the totality of the building and its contents under Section 1, coverages A, B, and C, of this policy.
Thus, this Court is left with the one question: what is the money value of the loss and damage resulting from the fire, sustained by the plaintiff, recoverable under the terms and conditions of the insurance contract.
Among his claims, Plaintiff originally alleged the loss of jewelry in the amount of $4,200. During the trial, however, Counsel for plaintiff withdrew the whole amount. Therefore, no finding is necessary in this respect.
Having heard the Plaintiff and witnesses, and having examined the documentary evidence submitted, this Court now enters its findings of fact.
The dwelling, or building, subject of this controversy was a rural residence constructed in part of concrete but mostly of wood. It covered an area of 2,193 square feet within which area were included approximately 322 square feet used as an outside balcony, and 1,871 square feet utilized as living space.
The cash value of this house at the time of its destruction in 1964, as the prices then stood, was $12,000.00. If we subtract from this figure a net depreciation at 3% per annum, the house would be valued today at $11,280.00. And, that is the amount we find that the house was worth at the time it was destroyed by fire.
Aside from the house itself, there was a certain amount of personal property destroyed. Among these, we find that the birdhouse destroyed was worth $45.00. It is clear from the evidence presented that the furniture within the house had been moved out of the premises some time prior to the fire and that very little still remained within. We find that the personal property which the evidence produced showed to be still remaining within the house at the time of the fire and destroyed by it amounted to $500.00.
Finally, the Plaintiff had paid an installment of $190.00 of which $29.64 had been earned by the Insurance Company at the time of the fire (October 1 to November 22, 1964; 57 days at $0.52 per day), thus there remained an unearned portion of $160.36 returnable to the insured.
Thus, we find that the total amount recoverable by the Plaintiff, save findings of law to contrary, is $11,985.36.
Now let us see what amount is recoverable at law, and therefore we enter now upon our conclusions of law.
The contention of the defendant that the policy or contract in its provisions is limited to the payment of actual cash value of dwelling and contents, at the time of loss, deducting from such cash value the valuation of the foundations and walls...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elberon Bathing Co., Inc. v. Ambassador Ins. Co., Inc.
...(3 Cir. 1954) (affirming conclusion of district judge that New Jersey would apply broad evidence rule); Group Von Graupen v. Employer's Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 259 F.Supp. 934 (D.P.R.1966); Harper v. Penn Mutual Fire Ins. Co. of West Chester, Pa., 199 F.Supp. 663 (E.D.Va.1961); Nebraska Drill......
-
Davenport Water Co. v. Iowa State Commerce Commission
...for depreciation from use, age and other like causes.' (234 Iowa at 687, 13 N.W.2d at 794). See also Group Von Graupen v. Employers Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 259 F.Supp. 934 (D.P.R. 1966). Similarly, theoretical reproduction or reconstruction cost has been approved by this court and other autho......
-
Meccage v. Spartan Ins. Co.
...but whether, after the fire, the thing insured still exists as a building. 1 Woods, Ins. § 107.' In Group Von Graupen v. Employers Mutual Fire Ins. Co., D.C., 259 F.Supp. 934, 936 (1966), a similar holding is expressed in this language: 'In a case such as this, where the building, as we her......
-
Surratt v. Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co., 8422SC719
...cost of the property, may be considered. 44 Am.Jur.2d, supra, Sec. 1507, at 502-03; see also, Group Von Graupen v. Employers Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 259 F.Supp. 934, 936 (D.C.P.R.1966). The court here found: that immediately before the fire plaintiffs' dwelling was approximately fifty years o......
-
Florida's "valued policy" law: the eye of the storm.
...Paterson-Leitch Co. v. Insurance Co. of N. America, 366 F. Supp. 749 (N.D. Ohio 1973); Group Von Graupen v. Employers Mutual Fire Ins., 259 F. Supp. 934 (D.P.R. 1966); Security Ins. v. Rosenburg, 227 Ky. 314, 12 S.W.2d 688 (1928); Meccage v. Spartenburg Ins. Co., 156 Mont. 135, 477 P.2d 115......