Quality Molding Co. v. American National Fire Ins. Co., 12659-12668.

• Decision Date: 19 January 1960
• Docket Number: No. 12659-12668.,12659-12668.
• Citation: 272 F.2d 779
• Parties: QUALITY MOLDING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

272 F.2d 779 (1959)

QUALITY MOLDING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 12659-12668.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

December 15, 1959.

Rehearing Denied January 19, 1960.

Alvin G. Hubbard, Reese Hubbard, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant.

John P. Gorman, Donald N. Clausen, Norman A. Miller, Jerome H. Torshen, Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellees.

Before DUFFY and SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judges, and PLATT, District Judge.

DUFFY, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff sued in the Municipal Court of Chicago on twelve fire insurance policies with business interruption forms affixed. Ten of the defendants removed their cases to the United States District Court where the ten cases were consolidated for trial. By stipulation, the decision which will be reached in the instant litigation will govern and control the two cases not appealed. The instant suit was tried to a jury which rendered a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $52,497.15. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial claiming, inter alia, the verdict was grossly inadequate. This motion was denied. Judgment was entered on the verdict from which this appeal was taken.

Plaintiff was a manufacturer of plastic flower pots or planters for household use. Plaintiff owned a factory in Chicago containing about 11,500 square feet. Plaintiff leased a contiguous building on the west which contained about 3,000 square feet. Plaintiff also leased 4400 square feet of space in a building a block east on the same street. The building which was burned in the early morning of September 12, 1957, was the building which was owned by plaintiff.

The evidence discloses that plaintiff had at least three kinds of fire insurance: 1) on the building owned by it; 2) on the contents of the buildings; and 3) business interruption. The first two are not involved in the instant suit. However, plaintiff claims the wording of the policies providing insurance for business interruption contained language broad enough to cover physical property such as "raw stock" and "stock in progress," in the amount of $33,207.76. Plaintiff also claims its loss resulting from interruption of business exceeds $200,000.00.

An Illinois statute (Ill.Rev.Stat. 1959, ch. 73, § 1009) provides, as do many other state statutes, for a standard form of fire insurance policy. Plaintiff argues that some of the language in the standard forms used in the policies in suit is not expressly negated by "Business Interruption Form No. 2," an endorsement which is appended to the policies and which is the basis for the suits at bar. We have carefully examined the polices and endorsements, and are convinced those business interruption policies here at issue do not cover "raw stock" and other items which would come under the classification of contents.

After the fire, plaintiff discovered it was considerably under-insured as to contents, but that fact does not warrant an extension of coverage, by interpretation, of the business interruption policies. It follows the disputed item of $32,207.76 was properly excluded by the Court as an item of damage.

The remaining point is the argument of plaintiff that its damage, because of business interruption caused by the fire, was much larger than allowed by the jury. Plaintiff states it is entitled to recover $94,000.00 for loss of profit in the twelve months following the fire. It claims $73,000.00 for what it calls loss resulting from down time on its machinery. Also $11,000.00 is claimed for abandoning its building on...