Princess Ring Co., Inc. v. Home Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 July 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 7015.,7015. |
| Citation | 161 A. 292 |
| Parties | PRINCESS RING CO., Inc. v. HOME INS. CO. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Edward W. Blodgett, Judge.
Action by the Princess Ring Company, Inc., against the Home Insurance Company. Decision was rendered for plaintiff, and defendant brings exception.
Exception sustained.
Ira Marcus, of Providence, for plaintiff.
Greenough, Lyman & Cross, George Paul Slade, and Lincoln S. Ferris, all of Providence, and Frank N. Crosby, of New York City, for defendant.
This action of the case in assumpsit is brought to recover the value of jewelry stolen from plaintiff's agent. The case was tried by the presiding justice of the superior court without the intervention of a jury. He rendered decision for the plaintiff for $33,935.34: The case is before this court on defendant's exceptions. The only exception necessary to be considered is the one to the refusal of the court to render decision for the defendant because plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of the policy. The undisputed facts present a question of law.
Plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the wholesale jewelry business in Providence and New York City. Defendant insured plaintiff for one year from March 14, 1930, against loss of jewelry by theft to the amount of $50,000, subject to the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy.
June 11, 1930, jewelry of the value of $34,415.49 was stolen from the automobile of plaintiff's agent in the city of New York. Plaintiff's evidence showing the theft of the jewelry was as follows: Harvey Epstein, a permanent employee of plaintiff, testified that about 9:30 o'clock a. m. he left the plaintiff's office on Forty-Eighth street and drove his automobile uptown to call on his brother Milton, who lived on Harrison avenue in the Bronx, intending to take him to see a prospective customer; that upon leaving the office he placed two telescope cases containing jewelry in a locked compartment in the automobile; that when he arrived on Harrison avenue he parked the automobile about ten feet from the entrance to the apartment house where his brother lived, turned off the ignition, and left the key in the switch; that his brother's father-in-law, Mr. Mark, was sitting on the ledge watching his grandchild playing; that he asked Mr. Mark to watch the car while he went to ring the bell to summon his brother; that he saw Mr. Mark lean against the car with his elbow inside the window of the car; that he walked about forty feet into the courtyard; that just as he started to ring the bell he heard Mr. Mark call; that he ran out to his car and saw a strange man at the wheel; that he ran around the front of the car and had one foot on the running board and his hand on the steering wheel when he was pushed off and the car started. The thief made away with the automobile. Shortly afterward it was found, badly damaged, but the two telescope cases, with their contents, were never recovered, nor was the thief apprehended. George Mark testified that he was asked to watch the car; that as he stood facing the front of the car, with one foot on the running board next to the curbing and his left elbow on the window sill, a strange boy jumped into the car from the opposite side; that he (Mr. Mark) called, and that Harvey ran to the car and tried to stop it. It appeared in evidence that the thief was aided in stealing the car by some confederates who were in another automobile.
The insurance policy was introduced in evidence. It stated that it covered loss of the insured property arising from, any cause except "* * * loss or damage to property insured hereunder whilst in or upon any automobile * * * unless such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
EMMI INC. v. Zurich American Ins. Co.
...Inc. v. Transnational Ins. Co. (2003) 151 Ohio App.3d 747, 785 N.E.2d 816 [salesman inside restaurant]; Princess Ring Co. Inc. v. Home Ins. Co. (1932) 52 R.I. 481, 161 A. 292 [salesman 40 feet from Similarly, in American Stone Diamond, Inc. v. Lloyds of London (S.D.Tex.1996) 934 F.Supp. 839......
-
E.M.M.I. Inc. v. Zurich American Ins. Co.
...occurring in connection with the hold up of a motor vehicle" while being operated by insured's employee]; Princess Ring Co. v. Home Ins. Co. (1932) 52 R.I. 481, 161 A. 292, 293, affd. (R.I.1932) 163 A. 181 ["`opportunity makes the thief"]; Phil G. Ruvelson, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine In......
-
JMP Assiciates, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
...the cases, Phil G. Ruvelson, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 235 Minn. 243, 50 N.W.2d 629 (1951), and Princess Ring Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 52 R.I. 481, 161 A. 292 (1932), are from courts of last resort. None of the cases is from a United States Court of St. Paul puts great store by ......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Russo
...instruments. See Colagiovanni v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 57 R.I. 486, 488, 190 A. 459, 460 (1937); Princess Ring Co. v. Home Insurance Co., 52 R.I. 481, 484, 161 A. 292, 293, aff'd, 163 A. 181 (1932). When the contested terms of an insurance policy are found to be "clear and unambi......
-
CHAPTER 3
...v. Transnational Ins. Co. (2003) 151 Ohio. App. 3d 747 [salesman inside restaurant]; Princess Ring Co. Inc. v. Home Ins. Co. (R.I. 1932) 161 A. 292 [salesman 40 feet from vehicle].) Similarly, in American Stone Diamond, Inc. v. Lloyds of London (S.D. Tex. 1996) 934 F. Supp. 839, the insured......