National Sur. Corp. v. Seale, 18121
| Decision Date | 12 July 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 18121,18121 |
| Citation | 499 S.W.2d 753,68 A.L.R.3d 1176 |
| Parties | NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Henry L. SEALE, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Russell M. Manning, johnson, Guthrie, Billings & Pierce, Dallas, for appellant.
Richard B. Turbiville, Passman, Jones, Andrews, Coplin, Holley & Co., Dallas, for appellee.
Henry Seale sued National Surety Corporation on a 'blanket crime policy' for loss of a coin collection missing from a safe after a burglary. The policy insures against 'Loss of Money and Securities.' The insurer argues that since the coins in the collection had been withdrawn from circulation and were valued as collectors' items rather than at their face amounts, the collection should not be treated as 'money,' but as other personal property, which was not insured under the policy because no marks of violence were found on the outside of the safe.
The trial court held that the collection was within the coverage of 'Money and Securities,' found its value to be $14,285, and rendered judgment for the $10,000 policy limit, less $100 deductible .
We conclude that the judgment is correct. The policy defines 'money' as 'currency, coins, bank notes and bullion.' Thus, the coverage of 'money' is not limited to 'currency,' which would include both coins and paper money in circulation with a fixed and stated value. The additional words, 'coins, bank notes and bullion' were evidently intended to provide broader coverage. Coins in a collection are still 'coins,' within the literal language of the policy, and thus fall within the definition of 'money.' This is, at least, a permissible construction.
The insurer relies principally on DeBiase v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 53 Misc.2d 45, 278 N.Y.S.2d 145 (Civ.Ct., City of N.Y.1967), aff'd 55 Misc.2d 676, 286 N.Y.S.2d 502 (App.T.), which involved an exclusion of 'money,' defined as in the present policy. The New York court strictly construed the language in favor of the insured and held that the exclusion, when so construed, did not apply to coins in a collection. That reasoning would not support the position of the insurer here, since we are concerned with an insuring clause rather than an exclusion, and if we should find an ambiguity in the language and should construe it in favor of the insured, we would still have to hold the coin collection to be within the coverage of the policy.
The insurer also contends that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kestenbaum v. Falstaff Brewing Corp.
...a federal district court sitting in Texas must apply the majority rule since it is the rule in Texas. E. g., National Surety Corp. v. Seale, 499 S.W.2d 753 (Tex.Civ.App.1973) ("The testimony of the owner that he knows the value of the property is sufficient, at least prima facie, to qualify......
-
Wright v. Gernandt
...no writ); Classified Parking System v. Kirby, 507 S.W.2d 586 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston (14th Dist.) 1974, no writ); National Surety Corporation v. Seale, 499 S.W.2d 753, 754-55 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1973, no writ); Barstow v. Jackson, 429 S.W.2d 536 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1968, no writ); 3 Wi......
-
Chrysler-Plymouth City, Inc. v. Guerrero, CHRYSLER-PLYMOUTH
...The testimony of the owner that he knows the value of the property is sufficient to qualify him to give an opinion. National Surety Corporation v. Seale, 499 S.W.2d 753 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1973, aff'd, 506 S.W.2d 579 (Tex.1974). It is well settled that the qualifications of a witness to te......
-
National Sur. Corp. v. Seale, B--4279
...collection was within the policy's coverage of 'Money and Securities' which defined 'money' as 'currency, coins, bank notes and bullion.' 499 S.W.2d 753. We agree with this However, we reserve the question whether the coins in the collection should be valued at their face value or at their ......