Picoraro v. Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania

• Decision Date: 20 July 1932
• Docket Number: 31733
• Citation: 175 La. 416,143 So. 360
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: PICORARO v. INSURANCE CO. OF STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

143 So. 360

175 La. 416

PICORARO v. INSURANCE CO. OF STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

No. 31733

Supreme Court of Louisiana

July 20, 1932

F. A Middleton, of New Orleans, for appellant.

St Clair Adams, of New Orleans, for appellee.

OPINION

O'NIELL, C. J.

This is a suit on policies of insurance issued by the defendant on a building and furniture belonging to the plaintiff, which were destroyed by fire. The plaintiff claimed the total amount of insurance, $ 8,000, on the building, and claimed $ 1,000 being half of the amount of insurance, on the furniture; but his attorney learned, after filing the suit, that most of the furniture insured was in another building, and he therefore remitted all but $ 243.05 of the claim for insurance on the furniture.

The insurance company set up two defenses to the suit, viz.:

(1) That there was a large quantity (about 80 gallons) of gasoline on the insured premises, in violation of a clause in each policy, declaring that it would be void if gasoline should be kept, used or allowed on the premises; and

(2) That the plaintiff either set fire to the property himself or caused it to be set fire to for the fraudulent purpose of collecting the insurance.

The judge who tried the case said, in his written reasons for judgment, that the impression made upon his mind by the evidence was that the insured set fire to the house. The judge said, however, that he deemed the first defense sufficient; that is to say, that having the gasoline on the premises caused the policies to be void.

The firemen who extinguished the fire, and a deputy fire marshal immediately after the fire was extinguished, found on the premises unmistakable evidence that the property was set fire to and destroyed willfully, and that the large quantity of gasoline referred to was brought there and used for that purpose. It was in nineteen containers -- eighteen five-gallon demijohns and a five-gallon can -- distributed about the house and along the stairs, from the first to the second floor, and connected by a fuse, made of cotton batting saturated with gasoline. At one end of the so-called set-up was an electric iron, on the floor upstairs, with the current turned on, which burned a hole in the floor. Some of the demijohns were broken or exploded, but enough of the gasoline remained to prove what it was, and enough of the whole system remained to show exactly how the place was set fire to.

The property was occupied by the insured until about three months before the fire. He and his wife and their three children lived in the rear part of the building and he conducted a pool room and soft drink establishment in the front part of the building; but he was prosecuted, on two occasions, in the federal court, for selling intoxicating liquor, and pleaded guilty. For the first offense he was fined $ 200, and for the second offense was fined $ 500, and sentenced to serve a term of one year in prison, but the sentence of imprisonment was suspended on proof that the defendant was ill. The building was then padlocked by the prohibition enforcement officers under an order of the federal judge, rendered in an injunction proceeding, declaring the place a public nuisance and ordering it closed for twelve months. Picoraro was ordered by the federal officers to move his family out of the house within 48 hours; and the family did move to another house owned by Picoraro about five blocks away. The fire occurred three months after they moved. Picoraro and his wife testified that they and their children were at home and asleep when the fire broke out; that about 3:30 in the morning a police officer, whom they were acquainted with, telephoned them that their house was afire. They testified that they had no knoledge whatever of the preparations made to set the house afire, and did not know...