Prudential Cas. Co. v. Miller
| Decision Date | 07 January 1919 |
| Docket Number | 3103. |
| Citation | 257 F. 418 |
| Parties | PRUDENTIAL CASUALTY CO. v. MILLER. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Wilson W. Mills, of Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff in error.
James O. Murfin, of Detroit, Mich., for defendant in error.
Before WARRINGTON and KNAPPEN, Circuit Judges, and SATER, District judge.
On October 2, 1915, Miller made a contract with a still alarm company for the equipment of the doors, windows, and transoms of (but not of the safe in) one of his Detroit jewelry stores with a burglar alarm system. He then held an unexpired policy issued by the insurance company, insuring him for $5,000 against loss by burglary. While the work of installation was in progress, Allen, who, notwithstanding his rather uncertain evidence as to his status with the insurance company, must be regarded as its accredited representative, met Guerin, who was Miller's financial man and business manager, at which time Guerin, so he states, exhibited to Allen the executed contract between Miller and the still alarm company. Allen claims he was shown merely an unsigned memorandum. The instrument produced was examined by Allen, and a discussion took place as to most of its details. Guerin took him over the premises, and explained to him quite fully of what the equipment would consist. The evidence is not entirely clear as to whether there was any mention of, or discussion between them relating to, the protection of the safe located in the rear of the store, but there is no pretense that Guerin represented that the still alarm system was to extend to the safe. Allen suggested, what was previously unknown to Miller and Guerin, that, on account of the improvement then being made, Miller would be entitled to a rebate on the premium previously paid for his insurance policy. He claims to have discussed the matter of the store's equipment several times from early September until some time in October, with both Miller and Guerin, and that on one occasion, when the latter was absent, he was informed by Miller that a complete system of protection including a wooden casing around the safe with connections with the outside central alarm system was intended. Miller did not testify, being 'somewhere between Jacksonville and Washington' at the time of the trial.
The still alarm company completed its contract for work at the store about November 1, notice of which was given to Allen who after that date on more occasions than one, visited the store, but at no time examined or noticed the safe. He had never seen a safe inclosed by a wooden casing. On December 27, Guerin received from the insurance company in Miller's mail a rider to be attached to the insurance policy, and also a check for the rebate (which had been figured by Allen) on the premium theretofore paid. The rebate was such as would be allowed for the protection of the safe as well as the doors, windows, and transoms, and was greater than it would have been, had it been based on the installation actually made. The check was paid, and Miller received the money. Guerin, presumably without reading such rider, placed it in the file with the policy, and neither Miller nor any of his agents knew of any claim of failure in the installation of the still alarm system until after his safe was burglarized and more than $5,000 worth of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Aaron
...v. Rife, 237 U.S. 605, 609, 35 S.Ct. 717, 59 L.Ed. 1140; Wagner v. National Life Ins. Co., 6 Cir., 90 F. 395, 407; Prudential Cas. Co. v. Miller, 6 Cir., 257 F. 418, 421. The law presumes, in the absence of fraud, that he did read it and was aware of its conditions and limitations. Couch on......
-
Lyons v. Empire Fuel Co.
...in the action at law. In any event, the action at law would be stayed pending the hearing on prayer to reform. Prudential Co. v. Miller (C.C.A. 6) 257 F. 418, 421, . . . C.C.A. . . . . The point is that by the action at opportunity was given the Fuel Company to try out then and there the ca......
-
Lundman v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 24551.
...thereof may be had under proper pleading and proof. In addition to the authorities cited above we cite Prudential Casualty Co. v. Miller, 257 F. 418, 168 C. C. A. 458; Banks v. Clover Leaf Casualty Co., 207 Mo. App. 357, 233 S. W. 78; Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Hook, 62 Ohio St. 257, 55......
-
Subar v. New York Life Ins. Co.
...Fletcher, 117 U. S. 519, 530, 6 S. Ct. 837, 29 L. Ed. 934; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Eddy, 239 F. 477, 478 (6 C. C. A.); Prudential Casualty Co. v. Miller, 257 F. 418, 421 (6 C. C. A.); Norwich Union Indemnity Co. v. H. Kobacker & Sons Co., 31 F.(2d) 411, 412 (6 C. C. A.); Taylor v. American......