Halpin v. Ins. Co. of North America
Decision Date | 21 March 1890 |
Citation | 120 N.Y. 73,23 N.E. 989 |
Parties | HALPIN v. INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH AMERICA. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the general term of the supreme court, in the second judicial department, affirming a judgment entered on a verdict directed at circuit.
This is an action upon an insurance policy issued by the defendant on the 10th of February, 1883, whereby it insured the plaintiff, for the period of one year from that day, ‘against loss or damage by fire, to an amount not exceeding $2,000, on his boiler, steam-engine and connections, machines, machinery, shafting, belting, puleys, hangers, tubs, tanks, tables, tools, vats, and all machinery and apparatus used in the business of manufacturing leather and morocco, all contained in the frame building and extension situate on the south side of Wallabout street, about 375 feet westerly from Lee avenue, Brooklyn, L. I.’ The defendant answered, alleging that after the delivery of the policy, and before the loss occurred, the plaintiff permitted ‘the said building in said policy mentioned to become vacant and unoccupied, and the said mill to remain idle, * * * until and at the time of the fire in’ question. It appeared that the property insured was to tally destroyed by fire on the 4th of January, 1884, and that for several months prior thereto the morocco factory had ‘stood idle,’ although the machinery was not removed from the building.
Thomas E. Pearsall, for appellant.
N. C. Moak, for respondent.
VANN, J., ( after stating the facts as above.)
The policy in question is a long instrument, containing some provisions that apply exclusively to insurance upon buildings or real property, others that apply only to personal property, and others, still, that are applicable to property of both kinds. The form was evidently designed for use in insuring both kinds together, or either kind separately; but in the latter case, of course, certain provisions were not intended to be operative, as there would be nothing for them to act upon. The only provision specifically pleaded by the defendant in its answer, as a defense to this action, is the following, viz.: ‘If a building covered by this policy shall become vacant or unoccupied, or, if a mill or manufactory, shall stand idle, or be run nights or overtime, without notice to, and the consent of, the company, clearly stated hereon, all liability hereunder will thereupon cease; and if a building shall fall, except as the result of a fire, this policy, if covering thereon, or on property therein, shall thereupon immediately cease and determine.’ It is contended by the defendant that ‘the machinery covered by the policy constituted a mill, and that its standing idle created a forfeiture.’ On the other hand, the plaintiff claims that a building is the sole subject of insurance contemplated by the first part of the clause above quoted, and that its true meaning is that if a building covered by the policy shall become vacant or unoccupied, or if, being a mill or manufactory, it shall stand idle, all liability shall at once cease. The plaintiff further claims that the property insured was not a mill or manufactory, and that it was not insured as a mill or manufactory, but simply as personal property.
We think that the plaintiff is right in his contention, because it would not be a natural or ordinary use of language to describe machinery used in milling as a mill, or in manufacturing as a manufactory. Herrman v. Insurance Co., 81 N. Y. 184. The property insured was neither a mill nor a manufactory, as those words are commonly understood. While the word ‘mill’ is used to describe ‘a machine for grinding,’ it is also defined as ‘a building, with its machinery, where...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Home Insurance Company v. North Little Rock Ice & Electric Company
... ... P. 511; 14 N.Y. 91; 25 P. 331; 72 Miss. 46; 17 So. 83; ... Id. 282; 19 F. 14; 4 Berryman's Ins. Dig. 1283 ... See also 87 F. 29; 89 F. 619; 60 Am. Rep. 736; 80 Ill.App ... 288; 85 Mo.App ... looked to to construe a clause relating to personal property ... Halpin v. Ins. Co., 120 N.Y. 73, ... 23 N.E. 989; Phenix Ins. Co. v. Holcombe, ... 57 Neb. 622, 73 Am ... ...
-
Bellevue Roller-Mill Co. v. London & L. Fire Ins. Co.
... ... ( England v ... Insurance Co., 81 Wis. 583, 29 Am. St. Rep. 917, 51 N.W ... 954; Halpin v. Insurance Co., 118 N.Y. 165, 23 N.E ... 482; 120 N.Y. 73, 23 N.E. 989; Ashworth v. Insurance ... ...
-
Zimmermann v. The Supreme Tent of Knights of Maccabees of World
... ... the assured and strictly against the insurer. Price v ... Life Ins. Co., 17 Minn. 497, 10 Am. Rep. 166; Halpin ... v. Ins. Co., 120 N.Y. 73; ... ...
-
Phenix Insurance Company of Brooklyn v. Holcombe
... ... Co. v. Globe Loan & Trust Co. 44 Neb. 380; German ... Ins. Co. v. Heiduk, 30 Neb. 288; Hughes v. Insurance ... Co. of North ... Hardesty, 8 Md. 479; Halpin" v. Insurance Co. of North ... America, 23 N.E. [N. Y.] 989 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Misrepresentations in insurance applications: dangers in those lies.
...1988). (10) Dineen v. General Acc. Ins. Co., 110 N.Y.S. 344, 346 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 1908); Halpin v. Insurance Co. of N. America, 23 N.E. 989, 990 (N.Y. (11) Board of Educ., Yonkers School Dist. v. CNA Insurance Co., 839 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1988). (12) See Grande v. St. Paul Fire & ......