Oller v. New York Fire Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 January 1950 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 49021 |
| Citation | 90 N.E.2d 241,339 Ill.App. 461 |
| Parties | OLLER v. NEW YORK FIRE INS. CO. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Arthur F. Melvin, Marion, for appellant.
Dorothy Wilbourn, Cairo, Asa J. Wilbourn, Cairo, for appellee.
Appellee instituted suit in the Circuit Court of Alexander County against appellant based upon a policy of insurance together with endorsement and renewal certificate issued by appellant. Trial was had before the Court without a jury and resulted in a judgment against appellant in the sum of $2,750.00 being the face amount of the policy of $2,500.00, plus interest. Appellant concedes that the sum of $1,694.30 is due and payable to appellee on the policy and brings this appeal to reverse the judgment of the lower court and asks this court to enter judgment here for the sum of $1,694.30 in favor of appellee.
The appellant, New York Fire Insurance Company, on October 27, 1939, issued to appellee a fire insurance policy, No. 16-51053 insuring property of appellee against fire loss in a sum not exceeding $2,500.00 for a period of five years. The premium paid was $105.70. On November 20, 1940, in consideration of the premium of $9.60, appellant executed its extended coverage endorsement to the said fire policy, the material provisions of which are as follows:
'In consideration of $9.60 premium, and subject to provisions and stipulations (hereinafter referred to as 'provisions') herein and in the policy to which this endorsement is attached, including riders and endorsements thereon, the coverage of this policy is extended to include direct loss by Windstorm, Hail, Explosion, Riot, Riot Attending a Strike, Civil Commotion, Aircraft, Vehicles, and Smoke.
'This endorsement does not increase the amount or amounts of insurance provided in the policy to which it is attached.
'Substitution of Terms: In the application of the provisions of this policy, including riders and endorsements (but not this endorsement), to the perils covered by this Extended Coverage Endorsement, whereever the word 'fire' appears there shall be substituted therefor the peril involved or the loss caused thereby, as the case requires.'
On October 27, 1944, a renewal certificate was issued by the company renewing said policy, No. 16-51053, together with endorsements for a period of five years for a premium of $168.50.
Thereafter, in May, 1945, appellee suffered a windstorm loss of $805.70 which was paid by the company. In February of 1947, the building of the appellee which was insured was totally destroyed by fire and the parties stipulated that the loss by fire exceeded $2,500.00.
Appellant contends that the policy with the extended coverage endorsement constituted only one policy for $2,500.00 on the various perils enumerated and its liability in any event or events was that sum; that having previously paid $805.70 on the windstorm loss, it now owes only the difference between $2,500.00 and the sum paid, or $1,694.30.
Appellee contends that the original fire policy and the extended coverage endorsement constitute two severable contracts, one coverning fire loss and the other covering windstorm and other losses for which separate premiums were paid. He further argues that under the endorsement clause entitled 'Substitution of Terms', by substituting the word 'windstorm' for the word 'fire' in the original policy, it clearly appears that he was insured against the peril of windstorm in the amount of $2,500.00 in addition to his protection against fire in the amount of $2,500.00; therefor, the amount paid on windstorm loss does not affect his right to recover $2,500.00 for his fire loss. Appellant argues that the documents show on their face that there is but one contract represented by the original and the endorsement; that the endorsement expressly recites it is a part of the original policy; that while an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Victory Container Corp. v. Sphere Ins. Co.
...unambiguously established liability only to the extent specified for the particular location. In Oller v. New York Fire Insurance Co., 339 Ill.App. 461, 90 N.E.2d 241 (Ct.App.1950), a $2,500 five-year fire insurance policy was extended to cover loss due to windstorm. The extension endorseme......
- People v. Standerfer
-
Tucker v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
... ... See Fire, Casualty & Surety Bulletins, Fire & Marine Section, Misc. Fire S c-1; Oller v. New York Fire Ins. Co., 339 Ill.App. 461, 90 N.Ed.2d 241. In 'scarcely more than a decade' after its introduction in about 1937, extended ... ...