Hornbeck v. Southwestern Surety Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 June 1917
• Docket Number: No. 12477.,12477.
• Citation: 195 S.W. 1054
• Parties: HORNBECK v. SOUTHWESTERN SURETY INS. CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

195 S.W. 1054

HORNBECK v. SOUTHWESTERN SURETY INS. CO.

No. 12477.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 11, 1917.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; T. J. Seehorn, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Josephine F. Hornbeck against the Southwestern Surety Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Ira B. Burns, of Kansas City, for appellant. Cook & Gossett, of Kansas City, for respondent.

TRIMBLE, J.

This is an action on a policy of insurance against direct loss by burglary, theft or larceny of property, occasioned by its felonious abstraction from the interior of the house occupied by insured, whether such theft or larceny be committed by any domestic servant or employé of insured, or by any other person or persons other than by insured herself or guests residing in the house. The property alleged to have been stolen was a ring set with diamonds and emeralds mounted in platinum and worth $500. There is no question but that it was specifically covered by the policy; nor is there any question raised as to compliance with all the requirements of the policy as to notice and proof of loss and notice to the police, etc.

Defendant's principal contention is that its demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained, for the reason that there was no evidence sufficient to support an inference that the ring was stolen. It insists that the evidence affords only room for conjecture as to whether the ring was stolen or is missing from some other cause; and, since the burden is on plaintiff to establish her case by evidence from which it can be reasonably inferred that it was stolen, rather than that it is merely missing, defendant says she has failed in her proof.

We are not impressed with the soundness of the claim that there has not been shown a state of facts from which the jury could reasonably find that the ring was stolen. It was a ring of special value and interest to plaintiff, having been a gift to her from her husband on their wedding anniversary. She kept it in its individual box, and this in turn was kept inside of a jewelry case or box, which reposed on the dresser in her room. Being an object of peculiar interest and value to her, it received the attention of special solicitude and care on her part, and hence was not such an article as would, from a careless handling and leaving about in various places of indifferent security, be as likely to disappear through accidental innocent means as through criminal instrumentality. Plaintiff wore the ring to a dinner or society function, and, upon returning home, placed it in its individual box, and then put that box inside the jewelry case on the dresser. When she next wanted the ring, a few days later, it was not there. The certainty that she had placed it there was absolute, and was impressed upon her mind by reason of the fact that, when she placed it in its accustomed receptacle, she studied its design and color, marveling at the manner in which the latter was imitated and matched by that of her costume. There was no evidence tending in any manner to show that the ring might have been...