Hunt v. General Ins. Co. of America, 16994
| Decision Date | 19 April 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 16994,16994 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Timothy F. HUNT and F. B. Bozeman, Adm'rs, Respondents, v. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellant. |
Stephen Nettles, Thomas, Cain & Nettles, Columbia, for appellant.
Wyche, Burgess & Wyche, Greenville, for respondents.
The suit on the policy involved in this case is so intermingled with another policy of insurance issued on the same building but in the name of and to the owner in fee of the property, on which suit was also brought, that we will immediately hereinafter set out the 'Statement' in the record, which gives a more or less detailed history of the litigation and showing the result in the lower Court.
This action was duly commenced in the County Court for Greenville County on February 9, 1951, by the service of a Summons and Complaint, seeking recovery on a policy of fire insurance issued by the defendant to the plaintiff Timothy F. Hunt and his sister, Jeanne Hunt Burley. The Complaint alleges that in April, 1946, Mrs. Belle B. Hunt conveyed certain premises to Timothy F. Hunt and Jeanne Hunt Burley for the lifetime of the said Mrs. Belle B. Hunt. That on August 22, 1949, there was in existence the subject policy, issued in the name of Timothy F. Hunt and Estate of Jeanne Hunt Burley, covering the premises in question; and that the agents of the defendant knew of the nature of the interest in the property held by the named assureds. That on this day a fire occurred in the insured premises, resulting in an aggregate damage of $1,290.45, which was determined by agreement. The Complaint seeks the payment of the entire amount of this loss and damage to the plaintiffs, alleging that the defendant is estopped to deny that they are entitled to the whole.
The answer of the defendant admits the issuance of its policy in the amount of $8,000 to Timothy F. Hunt and Jeanne Hunt Burley, and that the policy was in effect at the time of the fire of August 22, 1949. The Answer further alleges that at the time of the issuance of this policy Mrs. Belle B. Hunt owned the property in fee, subject to a life estate for the lifetime of Mrs. Belle B. Hunt to Timothy F. Hunt and Jeanne Hunt Burley, and that on July 13, 1949, defendant issued a policy in the amount of $3,000 to Mrs. Belle B. Hunt. That following the fire the defendant attempted to adjust the loss with the assureds under both policies, but could not do so; that it offered to repair the damage to the building, but the assureds would not agree; and that on August 15, 1950, an agreement was executed by all the assureds and the defendant fixing the sound value of the dwelling at $11,000, and the amount of loss and damage from the fire at $1,290.45, and in connection with the agreement the defendant waived filing of proofs of loss by the insureds. That the liability under both policies is the amount of the agreed loss and damage, and this liability to the plaintiffs is their proportion of said loss and damage. That the defendant has offered, and offers, to pay said $1,290.45 to the plaintiffs jointly, or to apportion this sum between them as they might agree, but that each claims the right to recover the whole amount of the loss. At that time, there was then pending in the Greenville County Court an action by Mrs. Belle B. Hunt, in which she sought the payment to her of the entire $1,290.45. There was also pending an action by the defendant against Mrs. Belle B. Hunt and the plaintiffs to the present suit, this being an action of interpleader in which the defendant sought to pay the entire amount of the loss into Court and be discharged from liability to all the assureds.
The interpleader suit was subsequently dismissed by order of Honorable W. B. McGowan dated February 7, 1951, the Court holding in substance that each assured sought recovery on a separate contract of insurance issued by the defendant and that interpleader did not lie because it is not designed to shield one from double liability, that is, separate and distinct liability to those interpleaded, and that the amount deposited, $1,290.45, was not sufficient to settle all claims of the interpleaded parties under both the policies. There was no appeal from this order and the defendant-appellant took down the $1,290.45 deposited with the Clerk of Court at the time the interpleader suit was instituted.
Defendant then moved in the present action to bring in Mrs. Belle B. Hunt as a party. This motion was denied by order of Judge McGowan dated June 25, 1951, from which there was no appeal.
This suit, as well as the suit of Belle B. Hunt v. General Insurance Company of America, was heard separately by Judge McGowan without a jury, on June 17, 1952. By order dated August 13, 1953, the Court awarded judgment in favor of Belle B. Hunt against the defendant in the amount of $922.67 (that being the proportion of the total loss and damage represented by her remainder interest) and awarded judgment in favor of the present plaintiffs against the defendant in the amount of $1,290.45.
In explanation of the assertion in the 'Statement' contained in the record that appellant 'offered to repair the damage to the building but the assureds would not agree,' it should be noted that this was satisfactory to the respondents here, but not to Mrs. Belle B. Hunt. This offer on the part of the appellant was coupled with a proposed agreement that upon the appellant placing the residence in at least the same condition as it was prior to being damaged by fire, it would be released from any further liability under the policies of insurance. Such would have restored the respondents and Mrs. Belle B. Hunt to the identical positions with reference to this property as they had occupied prior to the fire, except for the loss of the use of the residents to respondents while it was undergoing repairs. But this was agreeable to respondents.
The policy of insurance here sued upon is what is known as an 'interest policy,' and it is quite clear from the record that prior to the issuance of the additional policy to Mrs. Belle B. Hunt on July 13, 1949, and of course prior to the fire which occurred on August 22, 1949, the appellant through its agent, was well aware of the interest of the respondents in this property. The appellant, in the renewal policy which it had sold to respondents, and the basis of this action, had placed a valuation of their interest in the residence at $8,000. If it be conceded that at the time of this valuation, the appellant was not fully informed of the respondents' interest in this property, yet appellant made no effort to amend the valuation thereof, or return any portion of the premiums collected therefor after full knowledge thereof, and therefore under our Valued Policy Statute, Code Section 37-154, cannot be heard to question the coverage. The provision in the third sentence of this statute with regard to pro-rating where two or more policies are written on the same property is not applicable to a situation as now confronts the Court. The respondents are seeking only the sum of $1,290.45 under the contract, which it is agreed was the damage done to the insured residence; and their first knowledge of additional insurance procured by Mrs. Belle B. Hunt came to them after the fire.
We quote with approval and at great length from the order of the lower Court:
'As to the Timothy F. Hunt and Jeanne Hunt Burley policy, B. F. Bozeman, as Administrator for the Estate of Jeanne Hunt Burley, deceased, appearing for that estate.
'The insurance company takes the position that these plaintiffs' right to share in the Twelve Hundred and Ninety and 45/100 Dollars ($1,290.45) loss should be on the basis of their proportionate interest in the full property valuation, otherwise they would reap a profit on their insurance over and above actual indemnity and to that extent employ their policy as a wagering contract. It is contended that considerations of public policy preclude the invocation of the doctrine of estoppel to legalize a wagering contract.
'While public policy does frown upon wagering contracts, it would hardly look with favor upon an insurer with full knowledge of all the facts grossly over-insuring the interest of an insured and unjustly enrich itself by collecting full premiums and retaining the greater portion of the premiums without any offer to return same for which it recognizes or concedes no corresponding liability.
'There is no suggestion of fraud or mistake in the issuance of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metanoia v. XL Ins. Am.
...of the insurance.” Hunt v. Gen. Ins. Co. of Am., 87 S.E.2d 34, 37 (S.C. 1955) (citations omitted). Although the opinion is somewhat dated, Hunt nevertheless good law, and no other case has directly contravened it. In Hunt, the policy at issue involved a building that was conveyed by Belle H......
-
Thomas v. Penn Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
...than the actual value of Thomas' interest at the time the policy was issued and at the time of the loss. In Hunt v. General Insurance Company of America, 227 S.C. 125, 87 S.E.2d 34, it was held that the value stated in an insurance policy is considered the value of the insurable interest of......
-
South Carolina Ins. Co. v. Price
...and, thereafter repudiating their contracts as soon as it becomes to their interest to do so." Hunt v. General Ins. Co. of America, 227 S.C. 125, 133, 87 S.E.2d 34, 37 (1955) [quoting Mississippi Fire Ins. Co. v. Planters' Bank, 138 Miss. 275, 103 So. 84 (1925) In addition, South Carolina a......