Queen of Arkansas Insurance Company v. Royal

• Decision Date: 29 January 1912
• Citation: 143 S.W. 596,102 Ark. 95
• Parties: QUEEN OF ARKANSAS INSURANCE COMPANY v. ROYAL
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

143 S.W. 596

102 Ark. 95

QUEEN OF ARKANSAS INSURANCE COMPANY v. ROYAL

Supreme Court of Arkansas

January 29, 1912

Appeal from Chicot Circuit Court; Henry W. Wells, Judge; affirmed.

Affirmed.

A. W Files, for appellant.

Fire insurance policies should be interpreted with a view to arriving at the object and intention of the contracting parties. 113 P. 259. The insured forfeited his right to recover on the policy. 32 So. 104; 176 F. 76; 123 N.Y.S. 877; 114 Ill. 390; 55 N.E. 319; 49 A. 767; 46 N.W. 1073; 96 N.Y.S 183.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

This is an action on a fire insurance policy to recover $ 500, the full amount of the policy. The subject of the insurance was a house in Eudora, Chicot County, Arkansas, which was totally destroyed by fire.

It seems, from the meager abstract of the record which has been furnished, that the defenses tendered by the answer are that proof of loss was not furnished within the stipulated time, that the assured misrepresented the character of the occupancy of the building, thereby securing a lower rate of premium than the company would have taken the risk for, and that there was a change of occupancy after the policy was written which increased the hazard.

The policy contained a clause stipulating that it should be void "if any change, other than by the death of an assured, takes place in the interest, title or possession of the subject of insurance (except change of occupancy without increase of hazard) whether by voluntary act of the assured or otherwise."

It is insisted that the court erred in its instructions; but, as all of the instructions are not abstracted, we can not consider this assignment. An inspection of the record discloses, however, that none of the instructions is contained in the bill of exceptions, nor does the bill of exceptions contain any call for them, though the clerk has included what purports to be a list of instructions in the transcript. This is an additional reason why we can not consider the assignment of alleged errors in giving instructions.

This leaves only the question as to whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain the verdict. Enough of the testimony is abstracted to show that there was some evidence to the effect that proof of loss was furnished during the stipulated time. Therefore, that question is eliminated from the case by the verdict of the jury.

The rules of this court require that the appellant...