National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Slayden, 40013

Decision Date19 March 1956
Docket NumberNo. 40013,40013
Citation227 Miss. 285,85 So.2d 916
PartiesNATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD v. L. B. SLAYDEN et al.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Cunningham & Cunningham, Booneville, for appellant.

Fant & Bush, Holly Springs, for appellees.

GILLESPIE, Justice.

Appellant, herein called insurer, issued to appellee, herein called insured, an insurance policy covering a certain described tractor machine, commonly called a bulldozer, insuring against direct loss or damage by theft.

After completing the construction of a pond and road on the lands rented by one Garner, insured's employee drained the water from the bulldozer and left it on the edge of a field. The following day, which was a Sunday, one Conrad, who had subrented some of the land whereon had been built the pond and road, but who lived elsewhere in the neighborhood, went to the Garner property and started the bulldozer and operated it for some thirty or forty-five minutes smoothing the road. The engine became overheated by reason of being operated without water. Conrad left the machine near where he found it. Conrad was a friend of insured but had no permission to use the machine.

On Monday next, when insured's employees came to move the bulldozer to a new location, it was determined that the head was broken and the motor had sustained extensive damage from being operated without water. The machine was taken to Memphis where expert machanics repaired it and rendered insured a bill for $1,134.08. About three months later, the crankshaft broke and insured paid another repair bill amounting to $473.15 in connection with the replacement of the crankshaft.

The jury returned a verdict for the total of the two repair bills, or $1,597.95, and judgment was entered accordingly.

The case presents the question whether a policy insuring against theft covers a loss to the bulldozer equipped tractor resulting from the unlawful taking and use of the machine in the absence of an intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property, or stated differently, whether the taking must be the substantial equivalent of larceny.

While there is much authority elsewhere to the contrary, we hold that the term 'theft' as used in a policy such as the one here under consideration should not be confined to technical or legalistic construction. It is a broader term than 'larceny' and should be given the common and ordinary meaning according to the understanding of persons in the ordinary walks of life. Some consideration should be given to the purposes and reasonable expectations of an ordinary business man when making such a contract.

Where a machine or vehicle is insured against theft, without words defining the term 'theft,' and some unauthorized person unlawfully takes possession of such vehicle or machine for use by the unlawful taker for so long as he sees fit, and he vehicle or machine is damaged, the loss is covered by the policy and the insurer is liable therefor. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co. v. House, 163 Tenn. 585, 45 S.W.2d 55; Donges v. American Auto Fire Ins. Co., Ohio Com.Pl., 97 N.E.2d 108; Baker v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Gunn v. Principal Cas. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 3 Junio 1992
    ...ordinary meanings for words upon which rights turn. Wilson v. Wilson, 547 So.2d 803, 805 (Miss.1989); National Fire Ins. Co. v. Slayden, 227 Miss. 285, 289, 85 So.2d 916, 917 (1956); cf. Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 1-3-65 (1972). Gunn says the word "relative" as a matter of common and ordinary usag......
  • Thomas v. Global Boat Builders & Repairmen Inc., 55184
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 8 Enero 1986
    ...the repairs were necessary as the result of the wrongful act, and (2) that the cost was reasonable. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Slayden, 227 Miss. 285, 85 So.2d 916 (1956); Brown & Root, Inc. v. Continental Southern Lines, Inc., 228 Miss. 15, 87 So.2d 257 (1956); Bryan Bros. Packi......
  • Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Day, 55283
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 30 Abril 1986
    ...that theft includes damage incurred during vandalism. This Court addressed a similar argument in National Fire Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Slayden, 227 Miss. 285, 85 So.2d 916 (1956) and Where a machine or vehicle is insured against theft, without words defining the term "theft" and some u......
  • Frierson v. Delta Outdoor, Inc.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 13 Septiembre 2001
    ...289 (1964); Brown & Root, Inc. v. Continental Southern Lines, Inc., 228 Miss. 15, 87 So.2d 257 (1956); National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Slayden, 227 Miss. 285, 85 So.2d 916 (1956). Additionally, specific performance is impossible in a land lease where the term of the lease has already ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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