National Fire Ins. Co. v. Renier
| Decision Date | 01 December 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 3909.,3909. |
| Citation | 22 F.2d 671 |
| Parties | NATIONAL FIRE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN., v. RENIER. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Irving Fish, of Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff in error.
V. J. O'Kelliher, of Oconto, Wis., for defendant in error.
Before ALSCHULER, PAGE, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
This is an action to recover upon two fire insurance policies. The defenses pleaded were incendiarism, increase of hazard, and false swearing in the proofs of loss.
The only ruling of the court, for the review of which the record furnishes any basis, is the denial of a motion to direct a verdict for the defendant. The record shows that at the close of all the evidence:
No one of the reasons set forth in this motion is sufficient to support it.
1. False Swearing as to Value. To make this defense, it must be made to appear that the overvaluation was intentional and fraudulent. Overvaluation through mistake or inadvertence is not sufficient. The question was, To which class did this belong? The court properly submitted it to the jury, the jury found against plaintiff in error, and we cannot disturb its finding.
2. Increase of Hazard. This was predicated upon the admission of defendant in error that prior to the fire, about three months before, she had been arrested and fined for making moonshine in the insured property, and upon the following provision in one of the policies:
The evidence shows that the increased hazard, if it be such, existed and ceased three months before the fire. The loss, therefore, did not occur while the hazard was increased. This ground furnished no basis for the motion.
3. That there was no competent evidence of damages. Under this plaintiff in error contends that there was no competent evidence of the value of the goods destroyed. Defendant in error, without objection, testified to what the various articles destroyed had cost, and the number of years they had been in use. Her counsel then asked her what the sound value of the goods was at the time they were destroyed. This was objected to by plaintiff in error and ruled out. In Barrett v. Fournial (C. C. A.) 21 F.(2d) 298, suit was brought for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gechijian v. Richmond Ins. Co.
...the policy; and evidence cannot always be produced to establish something declared to be true in entire good faith.’ National Fire Ins. Co. v. Renier, 7 Cir., 22 F.2d 671;Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co. v. Stallard, 4 Cir., 68 F.2d 237;Palace Café v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 7 Cir., 97 F.2d 76......
-
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Herron
...383, 384; Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. Benedict Coal Corporation, 4 Cir., 64 F.2d 347, 352; National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Renier, 7 Cir., 22 F.2d 671. But, as pointed out by the Supreme Court of the United States in Claflin v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 110 U.S. 8......
-
Gechijian v. Richmond Ins. Co.
...the policy; and evidence cannot always be produced to establish something declared to be true in entire good faith." National Fire Ins. Co. v. Renier, 22 F.2d 671. Globe Rutgers Fire Ins. Co. v. Stallard, 68 F.2d 237. Palace Cafe v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. 97 F.2d 766. The jury could find th......