Hellrung v. Continental Ins. Co. of City of New York

• Decision Date: 21 June 1921
• Docket Number: No. 16626.,16626.
• Citation: 232 S.W. 240
• Parties: HELLRUNG v. CONTINENTAL INS. CO. OF CITY OF NEW YORK.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

232 S.W. 240

HELLRUNG v. CONTINENTAL INS. CO. OF CITY OF NEW YORK.

No. 16626.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 21, 1921.

Rehearing Denied June 29, 1921.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Audrain County; Ernest S. Gantt, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by J. F. Hellrung, individually and as executor of the estate of Frank Grimm, against the Continental Insurance Company of the City of New York, a corporation. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Leahy & Saunders, Clarence A. Barnes, and David W. Voyles, all of St. Louis, for appellant.

Abbott, Fauntleroy, Cullen & Edwards, of St. Louis, for respondent.

BIGGS, C.

This action on a fire policy being tried before the court without a jury resulted in a judgment for plaintiffs for the full amount of the policy together with $110 as a penalty for vexatious refusal to pay and $100 attorney's fees, from which the defendant has prosecuted an appeal to this court.

The main question in the case is whether the policy by its terms covered a certain building belonging to the plaintiff which was demaged by fire. The descriptive clauses of the policy are as follows:

"$1,000—On the brick building and additions adjoining and communicating, occupied as dwelling and stable purposes, situated on premises known as No. 1508 North Seventeenth street, city block No. 594, Saint Louis, Missouri.

"$100—On the frame stable building, sheds, fences and outhouses situated on the above."

The policy further provided:

"This policy covers said building, with its additions and extensions (whether of same or other material), attachments, connections and appurtenances," etc.

On the premises described plaintiffs had a two-story brick building, the upper story being used for dwelling purposes and a part of the lower floor for stable purposes. The remainder of the lower floor was an inclosed driveway. The said driveway and the remaining portions of the building used for stable and dwelling purposes were all under one roof. The driveway communicated directly with a large frame structure in the rear, which was termed a wagon or shelter shed which plaintiffs used as a shelter for their wagons and at times also for horses. This large frame shed as stated, adjoined the brick building, was attached thereto, and was directly in communication therewith by means of two large doors 9×12 feet leading from the shed into the driveway. There was a stairway leading from the second floor to the brick building to the shelter shed. On the same property, but entirely detached from the brick building, was a frame stable or shed which was sometimes used as a stable and for storing feed and grain.

A fire occurred which destroyed the detached frame shed or stable, also a part of the large frame wagon or shelter shed referred to, and did some damage to the brick building.

Defendant asserts under the descriptive clause of the policy the $100 item on frame stable building, sheds, fences, and outhouses covers all the frame structures on the property, including the large wagon or shelter shed referred to, and that its limit of liability for the damages to the small frame shed and the large wagon or shelter shed is $100.

Plaintiffs answer that the large frame wagon or shelter shed which is attached to and immediately adjoins the brick building is included in the first descriptive item of the policy, which provides an insurance of $1,000 on the brick building and additions adjoining and communicating.

The cause being an action at law and tried...