PROVIDENCE WASHINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY v. Stanley, 25976

Decision Date13 January 1969
Docket NumberNo. 25976,25976
Citation406 F.2d 735
PartiesPROVIDENCE WASHINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Lottie H. STANLEY, Individually, etc., et al., Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Joseph S. Mead, Mead, Norman & Fitzpatrick, Birmingham, Ala., for appellant.

W. H. Baldwin, Andalusia, Ala., Oakley Melton, Jr., M. Roland Nachman, Montgomery, Ala., Griffin Sikes, Andalusia, Ala., Steiner, Crum & Baker, Montgomery, Ala., Powell & Sikes, Andalusia, Ala., of counsel, for appellees.

Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and RIVES and McENTEE*, Circuit Judges.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM:

On petition for rehearing the appellant properly insists on precise accuracy in the opinion's statement of both the facts and the law. After careful re-examination of the 929-page record and the 49 exhibits, we find some corrections necessary.

At the time of issuance of the policy, title to the building and its contents was held separately. The Stanleys owned the building and leased it to their family corporation which owned the contents. The opinion erred in stating or assuming that the corporation held title to both the building and the contents. Recognition of that error does not however, change the result.

The named insured was "Covington Memorial Hospital," which was the trade name used by the Stanleys for nearly a quarter of a century before the issuance of the policy. The incorporation of "Covington Memorial Hospital, Inc." on January 2, 1963, before the issuance of the policy on February 1, 1964, did not divest the Stanleys of their insurable interest in either the building or its contents. As owners of the building and as shareholders of the corporate lessee, they had an insurable interest in the building. As shareholders of the corporation, they had an insurable interest in the contents. There was ample evidence from which the jury could find that the Stanleys individually were intended to be insured. One of the most cogent items is the "latest statement of values" preceding the fire loss. The policy provided that it was intended to cover "all property of every description * * * owned by the insured * * * all while situated at locations shown on the latest Statement of Values filed by the Insured with the Alabama Inspection and Rating Bureau." The "latest Statement of Values" completed on February 1, 1966 listed the name of the Insured as "Covington Memorial Hospital," but was signed "G. H. Stanley" on the line marked "Insured." Mr. Stanley completed the blank immediately under his name and calling for Title (or authority to sign) as "Owner." The Statement of Values listed, in parallel vertical columns under a caption "Values," two figures: $50,000 under subcaption "building or structure" and $60,000 under subcaption "contents." (Pl.Ex. 1.)

Before the fire loss, the corporation had been dissolved, and title to the contents had reverted to the Stanleys, subject, of course, to the debts of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • PROVIDENCE WASHINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY v. Stanley
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • January 13, 1969
    ...Ala., of counsel. Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and RIVES and McENTEE*, Circuit Judges. Rehearing Denied January 13, 1969. See 406 F.2d 735. RIVES, Circuit This is a diversity suit seeking recovery under an institutional fire insurance policy. Providence Washington Insurance Company (h......
  • Oklahoma Morris Plan Co. v. Security Mutual Cas. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • December 28, 1970
    ...reasonably possible, in the insured's favor. Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. Stanley, 403 F.2d 844 (5th Cir. 1968), rehearing denied 406 F.2d 735 (1969); American Ins. Co. v. First National Bank in St. Louis, 409 F.2d 1387 (8th Cir. 1969); Hansen & Rowland v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Mar......
  • Graves v. Norred
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • July 2, 1987
    ...1966, 279 Ala. 645, 189 So.2d 330, 332." Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. Stanley, 403 F.2d 844, 848 (5th Cir.1968), reh. denied, 406 F.2d 735 (5th Cir.1968). The prevailing rule among the states is that a partner or partnership has an insurable interest in the life of one of the partners.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT