Ideal Pump & Mfg. Co. v. American Central Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 December 1912
• Citation: 167 Mo. App. 566,152 S.W. 408
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: IDEAL PUMP & MFG. CO. v. AMERICAN CENTRAL INS. CO.

152 S.W. 408

167 Mo. A. 566

IDEAL PUMP & MFG. CO. v.AMERICAN CENTRAL INS. CO.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 31, 1912.

1. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 1010) — REVIEW — FINDINGS.

An appeal from questions of fact must be resolved in favor of the court's finding if supported by substantial evidence, and, in determining whether there is such evidence, all reasonable inferences are in its favor.

2. EVIDENCE (§ 450) — AMBIGUOUS CONTRACTS — INTERPRETATION.

Where a written contract is ambiguous, evidence of the existing conditions is admissible, and hence where a fire policy described the risk as a "one-story building with additions, on lots one and two," and it appeared that, at the time of the contract, the parties thought that lot 1 included the main building, evidence of that fact was admissible to show that the insurance covered outhouses.

3. EVIDENCE (§ 450) — AMBIGUOUS CONTRACT — FIRE INSURANCE — CONSTRUCTION BY THE PARTIES.

In interpreting contracts, the construction by the parties themselves is material, and consequently, where a fire policy described the risk as a "one-story building with additions," evidence that the agent of the insurer deemed outhouses to be covered by the "buildings," and that other insurance on one of the outhouses was noted in the policy under the head of "other insurance," is admissible, not tending to vary the terms of the written contract.

4. INSURANCE (§ 163) — FIRE INSURANCE — POLICY — CONSTRUCTION — "ADDITIONS."

Where a fire policy described the risk as a "frame building with additions," the word "additions" does not necessarily mean something attached to the building, and, where extraneous evidence showed that it was meant to include outhouses, the policy will be given the broader meaning.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sullivan County; Fred Lamb, Judge.

Action by the Ideal Pump & Manufacturing Company against the American Central Insurance Company.From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.Affirmed.

D. M. Wilson, of Milan, Jeffries & Corum, of St. Louis, and Williams & Williams, of Boonville, for appellant.R. E. Ash, of Green City, and Earl F. Nelson, of Milan, for respondent.

ELLISON, J.

Plaintiff was the owner of property upon which and within which it manufactured rickers.It took out a fire insurance policy, and thereafter a loss occurred which defendant declined to pay and this action followed.The judgment in the trial court was for plaintiff.

The question which the record presents for decision is whether the property burned was covered by the insurance.The descriptive clauses of the policy read as follows: "$700 — On one-story frame building, with shingle roof and its additions, adjoining and communicating, including foundations, occupied as a factory for the manufacturing of rickers, situated on the east side of Grant street, lots Nos. 1 and 2, block 12, in Green City, state of Missouri.$600 — On furniture and fixtures contained therein, including iron safe.$400 — On their stock of merchandise, consisting principally of lumber, bolts, castings rope and other articles for the manufacturing of rickers and other merchandise kept for sale not more hazardous, all only while contained in the building and its additions above described."The factory consisted of the main building and three other structures.One, 35 by 60 feet, was known as the lumber shed, paint shop, and storage room, which was 13 feet distant from the main building.Another, 12 by 14 feet, was a coalhouse, and some castings were kept there; and it was 15 feet from the main building.The third was a store, and workhouse, and was about 28 feet from the main building.The last mentioned was an old house, and had once been a residence.All were parts of an entire plant.These three detached buildings were destroyed by fire, and plaintiff claims they are "additions, adjoining and communicating," with the "one-story frame building" as set forth in the policy.Defendant insists they are not.

A legal rule constantly applied by appellate courts leaves defendant at a disadvantage.That is, every question of fact must be resolved in favor of the court's finding, if it is supported by substantial evidence; and, in determining whether there is such evidence, every reasonable inference and circumstance is to be allowed in plaintiff's favor.

Defendant asserts that the face of the policy as applied to the property excludes the buildings from the description.It is true there was not a certain character of connection between the buildings in controversy and the main building.There were no pipes,...