HANOVER FIRE INSURANCE CO. OF NEW YORK v. Ivey, No. 7521.

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: 250 F.2d 110
• Parties: The HANOVER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants, v. Joe C. IVEY and Pat R. Ivey, Apellees.
• Docket Number: No. 7521.
• Decision Date: 12 December 1957

250 F.2d 110 (1957)

The HANOVER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants,
v.
Joe C. IVEY and Pat R. Ivey, Apellees.

No. 7521.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued November 26, 1957.

Decided December 12, 1957.

Joseph L. Nettles, Columbia, S. C., for appellants.

W. S. Houck, Florence, S. C. (Willcox, Hardee, Houck & Palmer, Florence, S. C., on brief), for appellees.

Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF and HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in an action on an insurance policy, which covered the "Patricia Manor", a hotel at Myrtle Beach, S. C., damaged during the course of hurricane "Hazel" on October 15, 1954. The policy covered loss caused by "windstorm" but excluded loss caused by water "whether driven by wind or not". The case was heard by a jury, which found a verdict for plaintiff; and the

250 F.2d 111

only question raised by the appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury

There was evidence that a part of the foundation of the building was washed away by water; but there is evidence also that the building was badly damaged by the wind before the water reached it and that, even after the washing away of a part of the foundation, the building would have stood until it could have been repaired, if the wind had not changed and blown against it in such way as to completely wreck it. The evidence favorable to plaintiff was correctly summarized in a question to an expert witness who testified that in his opinion the damage was caused by the wind and that, notwithstanding the washing away of the part of the foundation, the building would otherwise have stood indefinitely. That testimony is as follows:

"Q. Assuming, Mr. Cooney, that the building, the Patricia Manor, was subjected to winds of a velocity up to 40 miles per hour prior to any water reaching the building, and assuming that before any water reached the building, the building had begun to develop cracks in the plaster, and that a sprinkler system attached to the ceiling in the building had burst, and that the building was creaking and cracking, and that thereafterwards a portion of the foundation at the front and to the side of the building, with which you are familiar, went out, that at that time the front of the building remained as it appears in picture made by Mr. Melton, with the porch still standing and affixed to the building, and with the building

...