Komroff v. Maryland Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 December 1926 |
| Citation | 135 A. 388,105 Conn. 402 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | KOMROFF v. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. |
Case Reserved from Superior Court, New Haven County; Arthur F Ells, Judge.
Action by Samuel Komroff (Merchants National Bank, Executor) against the Maryland Casualty Company on policy of burglary insurance, brought to the superior court in New Haven county and reserved by the court for the advice of the Supreme Court of Errors. Questions answered.
Burglar's unsuccessful use of tools on safe, before extortion of combination from jewelry clerk, held not sufficient to bring loss within burglary policy.
Benjamin Slade, of New Haven, for plaintiff.
De Lancey S. Pelgrift, of Hartford, and Philip Pond, of New Haven, for defendant.
The contract of insurance consisted of (1) a co-called " general policy," containing agreements and conditions appropriate and applicable to losses, whether by burglary theft, or larceny, and (2) a " rider," entitled " standard safe burglary rider," specifically describing the loss insured against and setting forth a further " special agreement," having reference and appropriate to insurance against safe burglaries. It was admitted in the argument that the general policy is used for all burglary risks, but that there are several forms of rider specifying and limiting the losses covered and the manner of their incurrence, the premium rate charged being proportionate to the extent of the coverage provided for.
The " special agreement" contained a provision (among many) that the insurer shall not be liable for any loss, " effected by opening the safe, safes, or vault through the use of any key or by the manipulation of any lock."
Such of the circumstances attending the loss by the plaintiff, set forth in the agreed statement of facts, as are material to the present inquiry may be briefly stated as follows: The plaintiff was engaged in the jewelry business and as a pawnbroker, on State street, in New Haven. On February 4, 1925, at about 8 o'clock a. m., one Silver, employed by the plaintiff as a clerk, opened plaintiff's place of business and, upon unlocking an iron door leading from the center of the store to the rear portion, was confronted by a man (later identified as Michael Ricitelli), who pointed two pistols at Silver, hit him on the head with the butt of one of them, commanded silence, and bound and gagged him. Ricitelli took the keys from Silver's pocket and locked the front door; then, loosening somewhat the rope that bound Silver's hands and pointing a pistol at him, directed him, under threat of death, to open the safes.
Silver, upon these orders, started to turn the combination lock on one safe, but " took his time hoping that some one would interfere." Ricitelli observed that Silver's hands shook and said to him:
Silver thereupon gave the combination to the burglar, who opened the doors of both safes by the use of the combination. Ricitelli then tied Silver to a drain pipe in the rear room, covered him with a fur coat, and, going back to the safes, took therefrom a large amount of jewelry and other merchandise and made his escape. The fair value of the goods so taken was $21,314.75; of these, articles of the value of $10,641 were later recovered by the police and returned to the plaintiff.
The burglar was heard by Silver to use a hammer or other instrument on the safes before he obtained the combination. Upon examination of the safes, marks were discovered around the locks, also finger marks, made by Ricitelli, were visible on the locks and doors of the safes.
The ultimate and decisive question presented by the reservation is whether or not the policy covers the loss sustained by the plaintiff, under the circumstances above stated. The policy is, obviously, not intended to provide indemnity against any or all loss by theft or burglary from the safes, but only such loss as results from the employment of means specified therein. A more complete or general indemnity could have been obtained through a different rider, carrying more comprehensive provisions as to the manner of loss, but involving payment of an increased premium commensurate with the greater risk.
In order to recover upon a policy of insurance, it is essential that the insured bring himself within its express provisions. If there are provisions of doubtful...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weingarten v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...ignoring provisions or so distorting them as to accord as meaning other that evidently intended by the parties. Komroff v. Maryland Casualty Co., 105 Conn. 402, 405, 135 A. 388.' The rule is well recognized. Aschenbrenner v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 292 U.S. 80, 84, 54 S.Ct. 5......
-
Heyman Associates No. 1 v. Insurance Co. of State of Pa.
...664, 675, 425 A.2d 131 (1979); Porto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 120 Conn. 196, 200, 180 A. 289 (1935); Komroff v. Maryland Casualty Co., 105 Conn. 402, 405, 135 A. 388 (1926); see Hammer v. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co., supra, 214 Conn. at 584, 573 A.2d 699; Horak v. Middlesex Mutual......
-
Swanson, Inc. v. Central Sur. & Ins. Corp.
... ... such should be construed most favorably to the insured ... Blackwell v. Maryland Cas. Co., 52 S.W.2d 289; ... Block v. U. S. F. & G. Co., 290 S.W. 439; State ... ex rel. v ... Ins. Co., 161 ... N.Y.S. 309; Abt v. Natl. Surety Co., 230 Ill.App ... 242; Komroff v. Maryland Cas. Co., 105 Conn. 402, ... 135 A. 388; Remedial Co. v. Indemnity Ins. Co., 169 ... ...
-
Raffel v. Travelers Indem. Co.
...insurance policy are plain and unambiguous, they are to be accorded their natural and ordinary meaning. Komroff v. Maryland Casualty Co., 105 Conn. 402, 406, 135 A. 388, 54 A.L.R. 463. If they are not, then the construction most favorable to the insured is to be adopted. Ross v. Protective ......