Hall v. General Exchange Ins. Corp. of New York

• Decision Date: 04 April 1933
• Docket Number: 13609.
• Citation: 169 S.E. 78,169 S.C. 384
• Parties: HALL v. GENERAL EXCHANGE INS. CORPORATION OF NEW YORK.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

169 S.E. 78

169 S.C. 384

HALL v. GENERAL EXCHANGE INS. CORPORATION OF NEW YORK.

No. 13609.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 4, 1933

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Orangeburg County; B. H Moss, Judge.

Action by L. G. Hall against the General Exchange Insurance Corporation of New York, New York. From an order granting defendant's motion for a new trial after verdict for plaintiff unless plaintiff remitted all actual damages in excess of $134 and all punitive damages, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Lide & Felder and C. E. Summers, all of Orangeburg, for appellant.

Adam H Moss and P. F. Haigler, both of Orangeburg, for respondent.

BLEASE Chief Justice.

The complaint in this action, omitting formal parts, in the second and third paragraphs thereof, alleged that the defendant issued to the plaintiff a policy of fire insurance covering one Chevrolet truck, in the amount of $200; and that, during the life of the policy, the truck was destroyed by fire to the plaintiff's damage in the sum of $200.

The fourth paragraph of the complaint, in full, was as follows: "That subsequent to the destruction of the truck by fire, the defendant, through its agents or servants, entered into negotiations with the plaintiff for a settlement of the loss under its policy, and in order to settle and adjust the matter, this plaintiff agreed to accept the sum of Eighty-five ($85.00) Dollars, net to him after paying an existing lien thereon, to all of which the defendant agreed, but that the defendant has wilfully, wantonly and with intent to defraud this plaintiff, refused to pay to plaintiff the said amount agreed upon, and has attempted to over-reach this plaintiff to his damage, actual and punitive, in the sum of Twelve hundred ($1,200.00) Dollars."

After denying generally the allegations of the complaint, which were not later admitted, the defendant acknowledged its issuance of the policy, and alleged that the insured in the policy were the plaintiff, and, also, Wannamaker Motor Company, the dealer who sold the truck to the plaintiff and held a purchase money lien thereon, and General Motors Acceptance Corporation, to which corporation Wannamaker Motor Company had assigned its lien.

Admitting that the truck had been damaged by fire, the defendant also alleged that one of its adjusters and the plaintiff had agreed upon the value of the truck at the time the damage occurred, and fixed the same at $110; that the salvage in the truck was agreed upon and fixed by the parties at the sum of $25; that the total amount for which the defendant was liable was the sum of $85; that following such adjustment, the plaintiff retained the salvage in the truck, and agreed upon the sum of $85 as full settlement, the lien debt, amounting to $66, to be paid therefrom; and, in pursuance of that agreement, the lien was paid, and the balance of $19 tendered to the plaintiff, which tender was refused.

On the trial of the case, the plaintiff offered evidence to show that the agreement between the adjuster of the defendant and the plaintiff was that the plaintiff was to receive $85 net, after payment of the lien debt of $66. The defendant offered evidence to show that the agreement was that the sum of $85 was to be in full settlement, and the lien debt was to be paid therefrom. The written agreement between the parties was ambiguous. The damage to the plaintiff was stated therein to be $85. Just above his signature, however, the plaintiff wrote in the agreement, "The amount of my claim is $85.00."

In its motion for a directed verdict, the defendant conceded that the plaintiff was entitled...