Lentz v. Teutonia Fire Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 July 1893
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: LENTZ v. TEUTONIA FIRE INS. CO.

55 N.W. 993

96 Mich. 445

LENTZ v. TEUTONIA FIRE INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 25, 1893

Error to circuit court, Lenawee county; Victor H. Lane, Judge.

Action by Henry C. Lentz against the Teutonia Fire Insurance Company. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

J. C Winne, for appellant.

Wood &amp Bird, for appellee.

MONTGOMERY, J.

Action on a policy of insurance. The loss is alleged to have occurred on the 23d of October, 1889. Three grounds of defense were urged in the court below: First, that the property burned was not covered by the policy; second that no proofs of loss were furnished; third, that the suit was not commenced within the time limited by the policy. The circuit judge directed a verdict for the defendant on the ground that the policy did not cover the property burned. The record contains the substance of all the testimony. If it appears that there is any conclusive reason why no recovery should be had, the judgment should not be disturbed. Dunning v. Calkins, 51 Mich. 556, 17 N.W. 54; Monaghan v. Insurance Co., 53 Mich. 238, 18 N.W 797. The policy contains a provision that "no suit or action on this policy shall be sustainable in any court of law * * * unless such action shall be commenced within six months next after the loss shall occur." The suit was not instituted until the 5th day of May, 1890,-6 months and 12 days after the fire. This delay operates to bar recovery, unless it is excused by the act of the company. This is claimed by the plaintiff. It appears that the adjuster of the company called upon the plaintiff in company with the local agent, shortly after the fire, and, as the plaintiff testified, then agreed to pay him $25 by way of compromise; but on the 22d day of December he was informed by the local agent that the company denied any liability, the agent at that time offering to credit him $12.50 as a premium on a new policy of insurance. This he declined to accept. He now treats the repudiation of the liability as excusing him from furnishing any proofs of loss, and justifying an action on the policy. Assuming that he is right in this contention, it unfortunately demonstrates that he was not delayed in bringing suit by the negotiations. Had he furnished proofs of loss the day the fire occurred, the company would be entitled to 60 days within which to make payment by the terms of the policy. He could not, therefore, have brought suit...