Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Hollis
| Decision Date | 02 July 1912 |
| Citation | 59 So. 785,64 Fla. 89 |
| Parties | HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. v. HOLLIS. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 17, 1912.
Error to Circuit Court, Jackson County; James W. Perkins, Judge.
Action by J. M. Hollis against the Hartford Fire Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
Where a plea is held by the Supreme Court to be a defense to an action, a demurrer thereto should not afterwards be sustained by the trial court in the second trial of the action.
Where a plea is a good defense to a divisible portion of the action a demurrer thereto should not be sustained.
In the absence of misrepresentations and fraud, where a fire insurance policy covers different classes of property, each of which is separately valued, and is insured for a distinct amount, the contract is severable, and a breach of the contract of insurance, that relates to and directly affects only one of the classes of the property insured, does not invalidate the policy as to the other class of property unless it appears that such was the intention of the parties and an intent that the policy shall be indivisible is not shown by the facts that the premium for all the classes of property insured is payable of paid in gross, and the policy provides that the entire policy shall be void if the contract is violated in any one of several stated particulars by the insured.
Where an insurance policy covers a stated amount of insurance on merchandise in a certain building and another stated amount on the building, the contract may be divisible, even though the premium is paid in gross, and the policy provides that in case of breach by the insured the entire policy shall be void, where the breach by the insured does not involve fraud or misrepresentation.
COUNSEL Cockrell & Cockrell, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.
W. H. Watson, of Pensacola, and Lewis & Buford, C. L. Wilson, and Wm. B. Farley, all of Marianna, for defendant in error.
A former judgment for the insured for the loss by fire of a house and a stock of goods was reversed in Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Hollis, 58 Fla. 268, 50 So. 985. Another judgment was obtained, and the insurer again took writ of error.
In the former writ of error, the first, second, third, and fifth pleas set out in the opinion were held to be good as against the demurrer there interposed. The court said the first, second, and third pleas are not 'open to attack by the demurrer as framed.' Of the fifth plea it was said: 'The plea is not so faulty as to wholly fail to set up a defense.' This is the law of the case as to these pleas.
In the former opinion, when referring to other assignments of error, it is said: 'Having discovered reversible errors committed in the ruling upon the demurrer to pleas, which necessitates the remanding of the case, when the pleadings doubtless will be recast or amended, whereby different issues may be framed, under which other and different evidence may be adduced, it is not likely that the questions presented by these assignments will arise on another trial.' This statement in the opinion gave no permission to present other grounds of demurrer to the pleas held to be good on demurrer, but contemplated pleadings raising questions of fact.
When a demurrer to pleas is held bad on appeal, the matter is res adjudicata, and the trial court is bound thereby. The statute requiring courts to permit amendments to pleadings does not contemplate amendments to the grounds of a demurrer to pleas where the pleas have been ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Fire Ins. Co. v. King Lumber & Mfg. Co.
... ... 152] ... extent. How v. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co., 80 N.Y. 32; ... Monitor Mut. Ins. Co. v. Young, 111 Mass. 537; ... Hartford Ins. Co. v. Reynolds, 36 Mich. 502 ... 'Domat ... thus defines his functions: 'The engagement of a broker ... is like to that of a ... The ... defendant rightly says that the policies may be divisible and ... cites Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Hollis, 64 Fla ... 89, 59 So. 785. The only other [74 Fla. 172] authorities ... cited by the defendant in support of this assignment are ... Georgia ... ...
-
American Cyanamid Co. v. Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Co.
...to that part, although other pleas prevent a judgment as to the remainder of the count until they are disposed of. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Hollis, 64 Fla. 89, 59 So. 785; Cosmopolitan Ins. Co. v. Putnal, 60 Fla. 41, 53 So. 444. Whether the lapse of three years does bar any part of the cou......
-
Schneer v. Allstate Indem. Co.
...recognize the divisibility of an insurance policy but only in the absence of fraud and misrepresentation.6 In Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Hollis, 64 Fla. 8, 59 So. 785 (1912), the Florida Supreme Court enunciated the doctrine thusly when addressing a fire insurance [I]n the absence of misrepr......
-
Flores v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...illuminating in guiding our analysis. The Second District in this case cited two cases from this Court, Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Hollis, 64 Fla. 89, 59 So. 785 (1912) (Hollis II), and National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Cubberly, 68 Fla. 253, 67 So. 133 (1914), for the "rule that an ......