Orient Ins. Co. v. Skellet Co.
Decision Date | 31 October 1928 |
Docket Number | No. 8140.,8140. |
Citation | 28 F.2d 968 |
Parties | ORIENT INS. CO. v. SKELLET CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Nathan H. Chase, of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.
LeRoy Bowen, of Minneapolis, Minn. (Ivan Bowen, of Minneapolis, Minn., on the brief), for appellee.
Before LEWIS, Circuit Judge, and PHILLIPS and SANBORN, District Judges.
Skellet Co. maintained a public storage warehouse. It obtained from Orient Ins. Co. a fire policy insuring it against loss or damage by fire, "On merchandise and property of every description, not owned by the assured, for which they may be legally liable, all while contained in the ten-story, fireproof building, situate and being No. 247-253 Sixth Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota." The policy, aside from the subject-matter insured, was in the terms prescribed by the state statute, and after the fire occurred the insured had its claimed loss or damage assessed by arbitrators, the insurer refusing to participate in the proceeding. It denied liability and objected to arbitration. The State Supreme Court had held that under the Minnesota standard fire policy the insured had the right to have the amount of its loss settled in that way, even though the insurer denied liability and refused to participate in the arbitration. Abramowitz v. Continental Ins. Co., 170 Minn. 215, 212 N. W. 449. We had the statute under consideration in Continental Ins. Co. v. Titcomb (C. C. A.) 7 F.(2d) 833, and held, following McQuaid Market House Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 147 Minn. 254, 180 N. W. 97, that the statute called for a common-law arbitration as distinguished from an appraisement; and we further held that although the statute prescribed the terms of the policy it was contractual when issued, bound the parties as to the mode of procedure in ascertaining the loss, but did not oust the courts of jurisdiction on the question of liability of the insurer. In a late case, Itasca Paper Co. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co. (Minn.) 220 N. W. 425, the Minnesota court again considered the rights of the insurer and insured to have an award of the loss fixed by arbitrators, whether the liability be admitted or denied. The court, speaking through its Chief Justice, said:
See also Hamilton v. Ins. Co., 136 U. S. 242, 10 S. Ct. 945, 34 L. Ed. 419.
The purpose of the statute, then, as construed, embodied in the policy, was to ascertain and fix contractually the amount of the loss and damage to the insured and leave only the question of insurer's liability therefor to judicial inquiry if denied. We therefore reject as unsound the contention that no award could be made by arbitration until the question of insurer's liability was first settled by admission or adjudication.
The arbitrators found the loss and damage occasioned by the fire to be $37,012.74, and insured then brought this action to recover the full sum named in the policy, $5,000. It is the contention of Skellet Co. that the goods themselves stored in the warehouse were insured, while the insurance company insists that by the plain terms of the policy it only insured Skellet Co. against its legal liability to the bailors; and it pleaded in its answer that Skellet Co. was in no manner responsible for the fire, that the fire was not due to any negligence of Skellet Co., that Skellet Co. exercised such care in the premises as a reasonably careful person would have exercised under similar circumstances; it pleaded the state statute which holds a public warehouseman to the exercise of reasonable care only and exempts him from liability where loss or injury could not be avoided by the exercise of the same reasonable care that an owner of similar goods would exercise, unless by agreement he binds himself to greater care, alleged that Skellet Co. had no such agreement and that it exercised the reasonable care that an owner of similar goods would have exercised under the circumstances, and that it issued...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cumis Ins. Soc., Inc. v. Republic Nat. Bank of Dallas
...followed in Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Reed, 108 S.W.2d 939 (Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio 1937, no writ).4 Orient Ins. Co. v. Skellet Co., 28 F.2d 968 (8 Cir. 1928); Allen v. Royal Ins. Co., 49 S.W. 931 (Tex.Civ.App., Austin 1899, writ ref'd); Insurance Company of North America v. F......
-
United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Mundell Terminal Servs., Inc.
...custody, and control,” which signifies that the policy is made for the benefit of the owner of the property. See Orient Ins. Co. v. Skellet Co., 28 F.2d 968, 970 (8th Cir.1928) (stating had the policy recited “that the goods described were held in trust, or a similar expression of like impo......
-
Lakehead Pipe Line Co. v. American Home Assur.
...or to seek a Protective Order. See, e.g., Itasca Paper Co. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., supra at 79, 427; Orient Ins. Co. v. Skellet Co., 28 F.2d 968, 969 (8th Cir.1928). Lakehead elected to do 10. Lastly, as a somewhat incidental argument, Lakehead argues that this Motion has been prematurely......
-
Huddleston v. Manhatten Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
...Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 85 N.E. 592; Miller's Mut. Fire Ins. Assn. v. Warroad Potato Growers Assn., 94 F.2d 740; Orient Ins. Co. v. Skellet Co., 28 F.2d 968; Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Ry. Co. v. Ins. Co., 55 Minn. 236, 56 N.W. 815. (2) Respondents had no cause of action against......