Guthrie Laundry Co. v. N. Assurance Co. of London

• Decision Date: 07 September 1906
• Citation: 1906 OK 100,17 Okla. 571,87 P. 649
• Parties: THE GUTHRIE LAUNDRY COMPANY v. THE NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY OF LONDON.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1906 OK 100

87 P. 649

17 Okla. 571

THE GUTHRIE LAUNDRY COMPANY v. THE NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY OF LONDON.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: September 7, 1906

Syllabus

¶0 FIRE INSURANCE--Property Covered By Policy. In an action on a policy on a "Two story basement and brick building, with metal roof, and its additions adjoining and communicating, including foundations, occupied as a steam laundry", it appears that a steam pipe 2 1-2 inches in diameter conveying the power for the engine situated in the main building, a partially completed platform and overhead arch between the buildings, and a sidewalk along the side, were the only connections between the main building and the boiler house situated about four feet distance therefrom: Held: That the policy included the boiler house.

Error from the District Court of Logan County; before Jno. H. Burford, Trial Judge.

Hunt & Chappell, for plaintiff in error.

Howard & Fulton, for defendant in error.

PANCOAST, J.:

¶1 This was an action brought in the district court of Logan county by the Guthrie Laundry Company against the Northern Assurance Company, of London, to recover upon a policy of insurance, for loss by fire to property alleged to have been covered by such policy at the time of the fire. A stipulation in the policy as to the property covered is as follows:

"One thousand dollars on their two story basement and brick building, with metal roof, and its additions adjoining and communicating, including foundations, occupied as a steam laundry * * *."

¶2 The laundry was in the process of construction at the time the policy was written, also at the time of the fire, and consisted of a main building 51 by 100 feet in size and in the rear of that, about four feet distant, a boiler room 22 by 33 in its dimensions. A two and a half inch steam pipe ran from the boiler house to an engine in the center of the main building, being the means by which the power was transmitted from the boiler to the other machinery employed in operating the laundry. The boiler house was joined or connected with the main building by means of framework of beams designated as 2 by 6's in the testimony, for an overhead archway, and also by a partially completed platform and sidewalk at the bottom, it being the intention to roof the archway over with brick, and there store material for use in the laundry work. The frame work was constructed and in position for the platform or sidewalk running from the east door of the main building to the east door of the boiler house. Each structure had its separate walls, and there was no connection between the two, other than the steam pipe, and the framework above mentioned.

¶3 Liability for the loss of the boiler room was denied on the ground it was not covered by the clause in the policy, above quoted. At the trial, after plaintiff below had rested its case, the assurance company demurred to that portion relating to the damage done to the boiler house, for the foregoing reason, which demurrer was sustained by the court, and the jury were instructed to confine their deliberations to the evidence of damage done the main building. To this the plaintiff below excepted. Verdict was for the plaintiff below for $ 20.00. From an order overruling motion for new trial, the plaintiff in error has appealed.

¶4 The principal question raised in this appeal is whether the boiler house was, in view of the evidence, covered by the policy of insurance sued upon.

¶5 Precedents involving similar questions are at hand. In the case of Pettit et al. v. State Ins. Co., 43 N.W. 378, the property described in the policy was "grain in St. Anthony elevator building * * * while contained in the frame, iron clad, metal roof building, occupied for the storage and handling of grain, and known as the St. Anthony elevator." It appeared that the entire property was known as the St. Anthony elevator, and consisted of an engine house, with adjacent elevator containing all the elevating machinery in the establishment, and also an addition designated as "Annex A," in distinction from the building first described, which was called the "main elevator," or "main elevator building." "Annex A," and the main elevator building were about three hundred feet apart, being connected by two galleries supported by trestles, through which ran a belt conveying on its surface grain from the main elevator building into the "Annex A." The objection being urged that the grain located in "Annex A," was not included in the policy, the two being separate and distinct buildings, it was "Held that the grain in Annex A was included in the policy of insurance, describing it as being in the elevator * * * and the language used describing the elevator, 'as a frame, iron clad, metal roof building, occupied for the storage and handling of grain,' Held, equally applicable to the whole or either division of the elevator, and that if there is doubt or uncertainty as to the meaning of the policy, it must be resolved in favor of the assured."

¶6 The case of Marsh v. Concord Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 71 N.H. 253, 51 A. 898; cited in the brief of plaintiff in error, is almost parallel to the one at bar. It involved the interpretation of an insurance policy written "on frame, metal roof building and all additions thereto adjoining and communicating * * * occupied by the assured as a pail shop;" and construing this clause of the policy, Walker, J., comments upon the evidence adduced at the trial as follows:

"The plaintiff was a pail manufacturer. He owned one large building and two small ones located a few feet away. All the buildings were used by him in the prosecution of his manufacturing business and constituted his

...