Hunter v. Pearl Assur. Co.
| Decision Date | 15 March 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 135.,135. |
| Citation | 292 Mich. 543,291 N.W. 58 |
| Parties | HUNTER v. PEARL ASSUR. COMPANY, Limited. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by George T. Hunter, doing business as Michigan Cartage & Storage Company, as assignee of the Michigan Cartage & Storage Company, against the Pearl Assurance Company, Limited, to recover on cargo policy. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; John P. Scallen, Judge of Recorder's Court.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Leo J. Carrigan, of Detroit, for appellant.
Frederick J. Ward, of Detroit, for appellee.
On May 1, 1936, plaintiff's assignor was insured by defendant against loss of cargoes transported in the assignor's motor trucks. The theft clause of the policy read in part:
‘In consideration of the rate at which this policy is written and subject to all conditions of this policy, the perils insured against hereunder are extended to include:
Theft
but not pilferage, it being understood that, as to goods and merchandise in shipping packages, coverage under this endorsement shall extend to entire shipping packages only. It is further understood and agreed that this policy shall not cover
‘(a) Theft by any person or persons in the employment of the Assured or owner of cargo.
‘(b) Mysterious disappearance.
‘(c) Non-delivery.’
On October 12, 1936, the coverage of the policy was changed by an endorsement reading as follows:
‘Effective as to all shipments moving on and after October 12th, 1936, it is hereby understood and agreed the words ‘(b) Mysterious Disappearance’ are hereby deleted and the following clause is effective--
“This policy covers non-delivery, meaning thereby the physical loss of any entire shipping package or packages but under no circumstances shall the risk of non-delivery provided for herein be construed to cover pilferage or any loss or damage by delay.'
‘Other terms and conditions remaining unchanged.’
On November 9, 1936, a newly employed driver left the assignor's freight depot with a truck loaded with merchandise and failed to return that night. The matter was reported to the police and the empty truck was found the next morning. The driver was subsequently arrested, charged with larceny by conversion, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced in the Recorder's Court of the City of Detroit.
The merchandise lost by plaintiff's assignor was valued at $3,756.20. Defendant declined to pay the loss and recovery was sought on two grounds: first, that the loss was covered by the theft clause; and second, that it was covered by the non-delivery clause.
The trial court, sitting without a jury, held that the loss fell within the exception noted in paragraph (a) of the theft clause of the policy. A judgment of no cause of action was entered.
Plaintiff contends that the endorsement of October 12th, which provided expressly for deletion of section (b) of the theft clause, by implication eliminated the entire clause including paragraph (a). It is argued that the non-delivery coverage added by the endorsement is broad enough to include theft and, since the pilferage exception found in the theft clause is repeated in the endorsement, it must follow that the non-delivery coverage endorsement displaces the theft...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Certified Restoration Dry Cleaning v. Tenke
...must be `construed so as to give effect to every word or phrase as far as practicable.'" Id. (quoting Hunter v. Pearl Assur. Co., Ltd., 292 Mich. 543, 291 N.W. 58, 58 (1940)). However, "[c]ourts may not impose an ambiguity on clear contract language." Coates, 276 Mich.App. 498, 741 N.W.2d 5......
-
Yates v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n
...practicable.” Klapp v. United Ins. Group Agency, Inc., 468 Mich. 459, 467, 663 N.W.2d 447 (2003) (citing Hunter v. Pearl Assurance Co., Ltd., 292 Mich. 543, 545, 291 N.W. 58 (1940)). In this case, the Court's adherence to this principle precludes summary judgment on Plaintiffs' breach of co......
-
Klapp v. United Ins. Group Agency, Inc.
...Instead, contracts must be "`construed so as to give effect to every word or phrase as far as practicable.'"Hunter v. Pearl Assurance Co., Ltd, 292 Mich. 543, 545, 291 N.W. 58 (1940), quoting Mondou v. Lincoln Mut. Cas. Co., 283 Mich. 353, 358-359, 278 N.W. 94 In our judgment, the vesting s......
-
In re B456 Sys., Inc.
...Klapp v. United Ins. Grp. Agency, Inc., 468 Mich. 459, 467, 663 N.W.2d 447, 453 (Mich. 2003) quoting Hunter v. Pearl Assurance Co., Ltd., 292 Mich. 543, 545, 291 N.W. 58 (Mich. 1940) (internal punctuation omitted). 49. Id. 50. Joint Ex. J104 at B456LT00005674 and B456LT00005690 (¶1.a) (emph......