Kanawha Inv. Co. v. The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection

• Decision Date: 10 September 1929
• Docket Number: (No. C. C. 420)
• Citation: Kanawha Inv. Co. v. The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection, 149 S.E. 605, 107 W.Va. 555 (W. Va. 1929)
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Kanawha Investment Company v. The Hartford SteamBoiler Inspection and Insurance Company

107 W.Va. 555

Kanawha Investment Company

v.The Hartford SteamBoiler Inspection and Insurance Company

(No. C. C. 420)

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted September 4, 1929.

Decided September 10, 1929.

1.Insurance In Damage to Machinery Policy, Clause Prorating Insurer's Liability, if There is "Other Similar Insurance," Held Applicable Only to Other Policies Having Same Specific Coverage.

Where an insurance policy covers damage to electrical machinery caused by breakdown and contains a provision that if at the time of accident there be "other similar valid and collectible insurance" against damage to the same property, the liability under the particular policy shall be of no greater proportion of the whole loss than the amount of the said insurance, the phrase "other similar * * * insurance" must be deemed to apply only to other policies which have the same specific coverage and not to general fire insurance covering the building where such machinery is in operation.(p. 555).

(Eire Insurance, 26 C. J. § 465, p. 363, N. 99.)

2.Same Under Policy Covering Damage to Machinery Caused by Breakdown, Insurer Held Not Entitled to Probate, With General Fire Policies on Building, Damage to Machinery by Fire Incident to Breakdown.

In an action on a policy of insurance specifically covering loss from damage to an elevator motor caused by electrical breakdown thereof, and containing a clause pro rating the liability of the insurer where there is other similar insurance, the insurer is not entitled to pro rate with other insurance companies carrying general fire insurance risks on the building where such elevator is in operation, the damage occasioned to said motor by fire incident to the breakdown, where the fire does not extend beyond the electrical apparatus.(p. 555).

(Fire Insurance, 26 C. J. § 466, p. 364, N. 8.)

3.Same Insurance Policies Must Receive Reasonable Interpretation Consonant With Parties' Intent.

Policies of insurance, like other contracts, must receive a reasonable interpretation consonant with the apparent object and plain intent of the parties.(p. 557).

(Insurance, 32 C., T. § 2G2, p. 1151, N. 81.)

(Note: Parenthetical references by Editors, C. J. Cyc.Not part of Syllabi.)

Case Certified from Circuit Court, Kanawha County.

Action by the Kanawha Investment Company against the Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Company.The circuit court sustained plaintiff's demurrer to defendant's plea, and on its own motion certified said action to the Supreme Court of Appeals for review.

Affirmed.

Wehrle & Murphy, and Steptoe & Johnsonand James M. Guthrie, for plaintiff.

E. Sidney Berryand Brown, Jackson & Knight, for defendant,

Maxweel, Judge:

The plaintiff as owner of the Peoples Exchange Bank Building in the city of Charleston carried a policy of insurance with the defendant on certain electrical machinery in said building.The coverage was for damage caused directly by the breakdown of any of such machinery within the term of the policy.During the term of this policy the plaintiff also carried $350,000.00 of fire insurance on said building, the same being represented by policies in twelve different companies.Within the period of the said policy written by the defendant there was a breakdown of one of the plaintiff's elevator motors covered by said policy.The breakdown was accompanied by a fire which seriously injured the motor, but did not extend beyond the housing of the motor.In this suit the plaintiff seeks to recover of the defendant the sum of $930.00, covering the loss and damage occasioned by the breakdown and fire.The defendant admits its liability under the policy for the damage caused by the electrical breakdown in said motor, which damage it estimates at about $150.00, but denies that it is solely liable for the damage resulting from the fire which accompanied or was incident to the breakdown.It says that the latter loss should be shared in proper proportion by the defendant and all of the fire in- surance companies which were carrying insurance on the bank building at the time of this accident.It predicates this position on the following paragraph of the policy:

"If at the time of an accident covered by this policy there shall be any other similar, valid and collectible insurance against damage to property, the assured shall in no event demand or recover of the company any greater proportion of the loss from damage...