Pomeroy v. CIMARRON INSURANCE COMPANY, Civ. A. No. 6380.
| Citation | 129 F. Supp. 35 |
| Decision Date | 24 February 1955 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 6380. |
| Parties | George POMEROY, Plaintiff, v. CIMARRON INSURANCE COMPANY, Inc., Defendant. |
| Court | United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. Western District of Oklahoma |
Stagner & Alpern, Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiff.
Butler, Rinehart & Morrison, Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant.
Plaintiff, George Pomeroy, instituted this action to recover $4,000 allegedly due under a fire policy issued by the defendant, Cimarron Insurance Company.1 After proper notice as required by the Rules,2 plaintiff presented a "Motion for Summary Judgment" wherein he urged that under the existing state of the record, inclusive of pleadings, answered interrogatories and depositions, no genuine issue of fact remained and that plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. After oral argument the motion was taken under advisement.
It is uncontroverted that the sued upon fire insurance policy was written up by the defendant company and delivered to plaintiff's agent;3 and, that insofar as shown by the policy itself the fire loss in question occurred during the period of time covered by said policy.4
By way of defense defendant asserts that the policy, although delivered to plaintiff's agent, was delivered with the intent of only insuring new draperies and new seats to be purchased by the defendant and that such purchases were a condition precedent to the policy becoming effective.
The Court in reading the description of the property to be covered by the policy has determined as a matter of law that the policy as written insured all contents at the designated location "including New Draperies, New Seats, and other Furnishings" and was not intended to just insure "New Draperies, etc."; and, the defendant will not be permitted to introduce parol evidence in an effort to show the intent of the contracting parties as to the property covered.5 However, the Court will not at this time give judgment to the plaintiff inasmuch as the defendant is entitled to an opportunity to make proof that as a condition precedent to the policy coming into effect new draperies and new seats were to be purchased by the plaintiff.6 Although parol evidence cannot be used to vary the unambiguous terms of an insurance contract, extrinsic evidence may be introduced to show just when the insurance contract was to go into effect.7
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should be overruled.
2 See Civ.Rule 56(c), 28 U.S.C.A.
3 The policy was obtained for plaintiff by S. J. Brand, an insurance broker. At the time Brand obtained the policy in question from the defendant company, Brand...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yager v. Thompson, 2003 NY Slip Op 51482(U) (NY 12/2/2003)
... ... , a claims adjuster from the defendants' insurance company visited the plaintiffs' property to ... Law Journal, April 30, 1999, at 34, col. 5 (Civ. Ct., Queens Co.) (Ritholz, J.). It has since ... ...