Montalbano v. Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 16371

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Citation60 S.E.2d 77,217 S.C. 157
Decision Date14 June 1950
Docket NumberNo. 16371,16371
PartiesMONTALBANO v. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN.

Page 77

60 S.E.2d 77
217 S.C. 157
MONTALBANO

v.
AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN.
No. 16371.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
June 14, 1950.

C. M. Edmunds, Sumter, John S. Hoar, Sumter, for appellant.

[217 S.C. 158] McLeod & Shore, Sumter, for respondent.

FISHBURNE, Justice.

On June 8, 1948, the respondent, The Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, issued its policy to the appellant insuring his dog against certain specified risks and perils, with listed exceptions which the policy expressly stated were not covered. The dog died from poisoning at the hand of some person unknown, sometime during the month of March, 1949. Whereupon this action was brought in the magistrate court of Sumter County, and upon trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of appellant for the sum of $200.00, which was the full amount of the insurance.

Respondent defended the action on the sole ground that the death of the dog from poisoning as set out in the complaint, was not covered by the specified perils insured against in the insurance contract.

The controlling issue in this case is the meaning and legal effect of the terms and

Page 78

provisions of the insurance contract entered into between the parties. This in turn gives rise to the question of the competency of certain evidence given by appellant and admitted over the objection of the respondent.

On trial of the cause, after introducing the policy in evidence, the appellant testified that he read the policy, but that he and the agent were both in doubt as to whether its provisions included death by poisoning. The negotiating agent, after conference with another agent of the company, returned to the appellant's place of business and, according to appellant's testimony, assured him that the policy would cover death of the dog from this cause. Upon this assurance, he accepted it. The foregoing testimony was objected to by the respondent, but the magistrate ruled that the perils insured[217 S.C. 159] against, and the exceptions as provided in the written contract of insurance, were ambiguous. Upon this ground, the parol testimony objected to was admitted as competent.

Respondent offered no testimony.

Upon the conclusion of appellant's testimony, the magistrate overruled respondent's motions for nonsuit, a directed verdict, and for a new trial. Upon exceptions being taken to the circuit court, that court sustained the appeal and ordered the complaint dismissed. The court held that the policy...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT