McManus v. Home Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 March 1930
• Citation: 229 N.W. 537,201 Wis. 164
• Parties: MCMANUS v. HOME INS. CO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

201 Wis. 164

229 N.W. 537

MCMANUS

v.HOME INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

March 4, 1930.

Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Chippewa County; James Wickham, Circuit Judge. Affirmed.

Action by James McManus, Jr., plaintiff, commenced on the 18th day of February, 1929, against the Home Insurance Company, defendant, to recover under a fire insurance policy. From a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant on the 4th day of May, 1929, the defendant appeals.Clarence E. Rinehard, of Chippewa Falls (Lord, Wire & Cobb, of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellants.

Alexander Wiley and Robert L. Wiley, both of Chippewa Falls, for respondent.

OWEN, J.

On the 26th day of October, 1927, the defendant issued to the plaintiff its contract or policy of insurance, insuring the plaintiff against the destruction of property therein described, by fire, “while located and contained as described herein.” Household and kitchen furniture, wearing apparel, etc., were covered in the sum of $500. Under item 17 of the description of the property insured, “harness, saddles, robes, blankets, whips, carriages, buggies, sleighs, wagons, including hay racks, and all other farm vehicles” were insured in the sum of $300 “while on or temporarily off the premises.”

The plaintiff was a farmer. For a number of years it had been his usual custom to run logging camps and conduct logging operations in Northern Wisconsin, at considerable distances from his farm. These logging operations were conducted at no fixed place. During a period of a number of years when he had conducted these operations he had logged in one place but two years. At the time of the issuance of the policy in question, there was stored in a storehouse on his farm a quantity of horse blankets, which was usually and customarily used by him as bunk coverings in his logging camps. On or about the 20th day of February, 1928, 67 pairs of said blankets were destroyed by fire while they were being used in the manner indicated in a logging camp operated by him in Ashland county, Wis. The defendant refused adjustment under the policy on the ground that they were not insured under the terms of the policy, because at the time of the fire they were neither “on or temporarily off the premises” where located at the time of the issuance of the policy. The court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant brings this appeal.

[1] It is first contended by the appellant that these blankets were covered by item 2 of the policy which insures household and kitchen furniture. This argument is based upon the fact that, although the blankets were horse blankets, they were used for bed coverings, and consequently fall within the general description of household furnishings. At the time the policy was issued, these blankets were not within the house, but were stored in a separate building on the farm. They had never been used as household furnishings, and the agent of the company knew the use to which they were devoted by the insured. Not being articles commonly devoted to household purposes, not having been purchased or kept for that purpose, and never having been used as such, we discover no reason for holding that they were included under item 2 of the policy; the property described therein being covered only while it is on the premises described in the policy. The blankets were in fact horse blankets. They were appropriately referred to in item 17 already quoted. They are not only appropriately included within that item, but they were deliberately included therein by the agent who wrote the policy, with whom insured agreed as to the amount of coverage to be placed on that item after it was determined that the blankets should be included therein. The property included in item 17 is insured while “on or temporarily off the premises.”

[2] The defendant contends that the absence of these blankets from the premises was not temporary in its nature. The antithesis of “temporary” is “permanent.” It would seem plain that their absence from the premises was either temporary or permanent in its nature. Their absence from the premises was usual, in the light of the purposes to which they were devoted by the insured. They...