Lieberman v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 August 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 55010,55010 |
| Citation | 287 N.E.2d 38,6 Ill.App.3d 948 |
| Parties | Ben LIEBERMAN d/b/a Acme Bed & Spring Co., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Rabens, Formusa & Glassman, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellant; George C. Rabens, Chicago, of counsel.
O'Brien, Kerpec & Evans, Chicago, for defendant-appellee; Donald J. O'Brien, Jr., Dom J. Rizzi, Chicago, of counsel.
This action was instituted by plaintiff to recover under a fire insurance policy issued by defendant. A jury verdict was rendered in favor of defendant and judgment was entered on the verdict. On appeal plaintiff contends: (1) that he was entitled to recover for the loss and damages to the building in its physical condition immediately prior to the fire; (2) that evidentiary rulings by the court served only to confuse the jury; (3) that the court erred in instructing the jury; and (4) that the court should have directed the jury to return a verdict for plaintiff as to liability and assess plaintiff's damages.
Plaintiff was the sole beneficiary of a trust which owned the property and factory building located at 515--535 East Pershing Road in Chicago and purchased a fire insurance policy covering the premises. The policy provides in pertinent part:
IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PROVISIONS AND STIPULATIONS HEREIN OR ADDED HERETO AND OF the premium above specified, this Company, . . . to an amount not exceeding the amount(s) above specified, ($10,000) does insure the insured named above and legal representatives, to the extent of the actual cash value of the property at the time of loss, but not exceeding the amount which it would cost to repair or replace property with material of like kind and quality within a reasonable time after such loss, . . . nor in any event for more than the interest of the insured, against all direct loss by fire . . . to the property described herein . . ..
A lease for the property was executed between Jewel Tea Company, as lessee, and plaintiff's trustee, as lessor. The lease provided that the lessor was to construct a new building (in place of the one then standing on the premises) which would be occupied by the lessee. The lease also provided that the lessor, in the construction of the building, 'may retain and place in good condition' a portion of the west wall of the building then existing. Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Comet Builders for the erection of the building required by the lease. Part of that agreement required the demolition of the existing building, a project which was subcontracted by Comet Builders to Three Oaks Wrecking and Lumber Company. Demolition commenced on approximately October 14, 1965; at that time plaintiff was in the process of removing his effects from the building and had ceased using it as his place of business. On the date of the fire, October 17, 1965, the demolition was in its early stages; only a portion of the roof had been removed. After the fire all the walls had to be taken down, the west wall being spalled-shaled...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arun Veluchamy, Anu Veluchamy, Sonia Veluchamy, Oakbrook Fin., Inc. (In re Veluchamy)
...gain some advantage by its continued existence and suffer loss or disadvantage by its destruction.” Lieberman v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 6 Ill.App.3d 948, 287 N.E.2d 38, 40 (1972). If a party has transferred its interest in insured property, it may not recover under the insurance policy, Fa......
-
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Veluchamy (In re Veluchamy)
...gain some advantage by its continued existence and suffer loss or disadvantage by its destruction.” Lieberman v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 6 Ill.App.3d 948, 287 N.E.2d 38, 40 (1972). If a party has transferred its interest in insured property, it may not recover under the insurance policy, Fa......
-
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arun Veluchamy, Anu Veluchamy, Sonia Veluchamy, Oakbrook Fin., Inc. (In re Veluchamy), Bankruptcy No. 11 B 33413.
...gain some advantage by its continued existence and suffer loss or disadvantage by its destruction.” Lieberman v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 6 Ill.App.3d 948, 287 N.E.2d 38, 40 (1972). If a party has transferred its interest in insured property, it may not recover under the insurance policy, Fa......
-
Garcy Corporation v. Home Insurance Company
...commitment to demolish are Royal Ins. Co. v. Sisters of the Presentation, 430 F.2d 759 (9th Cir. 1970); Lieberman v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 6 Ill.App.3d 948, 287 N.E.2d 38 (1972); and Board of Education v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 124 W.Va. 163, 19 S.E.2d 448 (1942). Royal Ins. Co. was deci......
-
CHAPTER 2
...time of the fire. Id. In urging us to affirm the decision of the trial court, State Farm relies on Lieberman v. Hartford Insurance Co., 6 Ill. App. 3d 948 (1972), holding that the insured did not possess an insurable interest when a fire destroyed the building while demolition was in its ea......