Hankins v. The Williamsburg City Fire Insurance Company

• Decision Date: 11 December 1915
• Docket Number: 19,718
• Citation: 153 P. 491,96 Kan. 706
• Parties: T. HANKINS, Appellee, v. THE WILLIAMSBURG CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

153 P. 491

96 Kan. 706

T. HANKINS, Appellee, v. THE WILLIAMSBURG CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant

No. 19,718

Supreme Court of Kansas

December 11, 1915

Decided July, 1915.

Appeal from Douglas district court; CHARLES A. SMART, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

INSURANCE--Stipulation of Absolute Ownership--Equitable Title--Possession. A fire insurance policy upon a building containing a stipulation that the policy "shall be void . . . if the interest of the insured be other than unconditional and sole ownership" is not invalidated because of an outstanding naked legal title in another where the insured has the equitable title, the entire beneficial ownership of the property, and is in undisputed possession of the same.

S. D. Bishop, of Lawrence, and Bruce Barnett, of Kansas City, Mo., for the appellant.

W. B. Pleasant, of Ottawa, for the appellee.

OPINION

JOHNSTON, C. J.

The decision herein turns upon the interpretation of a provision in a policy of fire insurance that: "This entire policy, unless otherwise provided by agreement indorsed hereon or added hereto, shall be void . . . if the interest of the insured be other than unconditional and sole ownership."

It appears that on July 15, 1909, plaintiff purchased, with his individual funds, a business building in Baldwin and took the deed therefor in the name of his wife, Mary J. Hankins, which he has always kept in his possession. Plaintiff paid the taxes upon the property, collected the rents, made the repairs out of his own funds, and held exclusive possession of the property. After the purchase of the property and before the issuance of the policy Mary J. Hankins died, leaving surviving her husband, the plaintiff, and six children. In April, 1913, plaintiff applied to one W. A. McClure, who was the agent in Baldwin of several fire insurance companies, for a policy of fire insurance upon the property. One of McClure's companies refused the risk. Then McClure procured a policy for $ 1000 in defendant company through an arrangement he had made with defendant's agent, Henry C. Long, of Ottawa, and plaintiff paid the premium to McClure and from him received the policy. On July 7, 1913, the property burned, proofs of loss were properly made, and defendant refusing to pay the loss, plaintiff brought this action. On the trial of the case the court found that McClure knew the condition of plaintiff's title, and, further, that plaintiff did not know of McClure's arrangement with Long to obtain policies through him and to divide the commissions. It was also found that the evidence did not show that plaintiff knew of the condition of the policy or that he had made any representation as to ownership. The court found against defendant company for $ 1045 and $ 150 attorney's fee and overruled its motion for a new trial. Defendant appeals.

It is defendant's contention that plaintiff did not have the "unconditional and sole ownership" of the property and therefore that the policy is void. It will be observed that the stipulation in the policy does not make the lack of legal title in the insured a ground of invalidity nor does it provide that he must have any deed or muniment of title. It goes no farther than to require that he shall have unconditional and sole ownership. Plaintiff not only had an insurable interest in the property, but according to...