Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Coffman

• Decision Date: 25 February 1927
• Citation: 218 Ky. 568,291 S.W. 725
• Parties: HANOVER FIRE INS. CO. v. COFFMAN. NORTHWESTERN FIRE & MARINE INS. CO. v. COFFMAN. NATIONAL SURETY FIRE INS. CO. v. COFFMAN.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

291 S.W. 725

218 Ky. 568

HANOVER FIRE INS. CO. v. COFFMAN.

NORTHWESTERN FIRE & MARINE INS. CO. v. COFFMAN.

NATIONAL SURETY FIRE INS. CO. v. COFFMAN.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

February 25, 1927

Appeals from Circuit Court, Webster County.

Actions consolidated for trial, by Mrs. V. H. Coffman against the Hanover Fire Insurance Company, the Northwestern Fire &amp Marine Insurance Company, and the National Surety Fire Insurance Company, respectively. Judgments for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Frank M. Drake, of Louisville, and C. W. Bennett, of Dixon, for appellants.

Blackwell & Lisman and Rayburn & Withers, all of Dixon, for appellee.

TURNER C.

Prior to September, 1924, appellee operated a hotel at Providence Webster county. The hotel was a two-story structure, had six rooms on each floor, and there were two in the basement.

In September, 1924, she took out with one of the appellants a policy of $1,000 on the contents of the building. In October of the same year she insured with another of appellants the same property for $1,000; and in November procured from the other appellant a third policy of $1,000 on the same property. By indorsement on each of the policies other insurance was permitted.

In May 1925, during the life of each of the policies, the insured property was totally destroyed by fire, and these three actions were instituted by her upon the policies. the defenses being the same, the three causes were heard together in the trial court, and a verdict entered for $800 against each of appellants, aggregating $2,400.

In the proofs of loss the aggregate value of the destroyed property was fixed by appellee at something more than $3,000, and the answers denied such value, or any other value in excess of $1,500. In a separate paragraph the answers allege that the several policies provide they shall be void, if the insured has concealed or misrepresented in writing or otherwise any material fact or circumstance concerning the insurance, and allege that the policies were each secured upon the representation of plaintiff that she was carrying, and would continue during the term of the policy to carry, no more insurance than the $1,000, and then they allege she was at the time of the fire carrying two other policies of $1,000 each, and that the existence of such two other policies was intentionally concealed from each defendant, with the purpose of misleading it; and that, by the carrying of such insurance in excess of the property value, and by concealing such overinsurance, plaintiff committed a fraud upon each of the defendants, which was material to the risk, and perpetrated by the plaintiff for the purpose of attempting to recover insurance on said property in excess of the loss thereon.

In another paragraph it is alleged that the policies provide they shall each be void in case of fraud or false swearing by insured touching any matter relative to the insurance or the subject thereof, whether before or after the loss, and they then allege that among the items insured by the policies was a piano...