Home Ins. Co. v. Hardin, 29838

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Writing for the Court: Griffith, J.
• Citation: 162 Miss. 254,139 So. 603
• Parties: HOME INS. Co. v. HARDIN
• Decision Date: 15 February 1932
• Docket Number: 29838

139 So. 603

162 Miss. 254

HOME INS. Co.
v.
HARDIN

No. 29838

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 15, 1932

Division B

1. EVIDENCE.

It is common knowledge that fire hazard is greater when dwellings are vacant, especially when situated in country.

2. INSURANCE. Provision that fire policy shall be void if premises remain vacant for more than ten days without insurer's written consent held reasonable and binding.

Provision of fire policy was reasonable and binding, as against contention insurers knew at time that policy was issued that property was occupied by a tenant, and that it might take reasonable time for owner to obtain knowledge of vacancy and to secure new tenants, since terms of policy were plain and unambiguous, and hazard of fire is much greater when dwelling house is vacant and unoccupied than otherwise.

HON. THOS. L. PEGRAM, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Calhoun county HON. THOS. L. PEGRAM, Judge.

Action by J. A. Hardin against the Home Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed, and judgment rendered for defendant.

Reversed, and judgment here for appellant.

Wells, Jones, Wells & Lipscomb, of Jackson, for appellant.

The vacancy clause in a fire insurance is valid and if a loss occurs while a violation of such exists, there can be no recovery.

Home Insurance Company v. Scales, 71 Miss. 975.

If the policy provides that the same is to become void by vacancy or nonoccupancy, the forfeiture does not depend at all upon insured's knowledge of the vacancy or nonoccupancy; nor upon his due diligence to keep the premises occupied. [162 Miss. 255]

26 Corpus Juris, page 211, par. 255.

Grant that the knowledge of the agent of appellant is imputable to the company, and the case is not altered. The company was not bound to notify the insured of the unoccupied condition of the house, if it actually knew it.

Home Insurance Co. v. Scales, 71. Miss. 975, 15 So. 134.

The insured is charged with notice of the provisions of his policy; if by his carelessness or inattention he avoids the policy and a loss occurs after its avoidance by his negligence or inattention, there can be no recovery on the policy.

Home Insurance Co. v. Scales, 71 Miss. 975, 15 So. 134.

Creekmore & Creekmore, of Jackson, for appellee.

According to the prevailing view, if a fire insurance policy is taken on tenement property, provision for forfeiture in case the premises become vacant will operate only after a reasonable time has elapsed in which to obtain another tenant.

14 R. C. L. 1104, sec. 282; 26 C. J. 216, sec. 263.

Where tenant property is insured a change of tenants is contemplated, and any temporary vacancy caused by or incident to such change is not within the clause forfeiting the policy on account of vacancy or non-occupancy.

American Insurance Company v. Hayes, 296 S.W. 724.

However, the general and usual condition against vacancy, in insurance policies on property occupied by the owner, which is inserted in a policy on a building occupied by a tenant, will not operate to avoid the policy immediately upon the removal of the tenant, of which the owner neither has notice nor reasonable opportunity to obtain it. And if insurance is taken on tenement property, a provision for forfeiture, in case the premises become vacant, will operate only after a reasonable time has elapsed in which...