Redner v. New York Fire Insurance Company

• Decision Date: 03 June 1904
• Docket Number: 13,978 - (37)
• Parties: FRED E. REDNER v. NEW YORK FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and Others
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

99 N.W. 886

92 Minn. 306

FRED E. REDNER v. NEW YORK FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and Others

Nos. 13,978 - (37)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

June 3, 1904

Action in the district court for Hennepin county to vacate and set aside an award of arbitrators; to have ascertained the amount plaintiff was entitled to recover from defendants, New York Fire Insurance Company and three other companies, upon certain policies of fire insurance respectively issued by them; and for general relief. From an order, Elliott, J. overruling a demurrer to the complaint on the grounds that the same did not state a cause of action and that several causes of action were therein improperly united, defendants appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Fire Insurance -- Setting Aside Award.

Action to set aside the award of arbitrators, and to recover on fire insurance policies the amount of the plaintiff's loss by reason of the destruction by fire of the property therein described. Held:

1. That the plaintiff was entitled to appear before the arbitrators and to be heard, and to offer evidence touching his loss. A denial of such right by the arbitrators is a ground for setting aside their award.

2. The complaint herein alleges facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and several causes of action are not improperly united therein.

Lane & Nantz, for appellants.

M. H. Boutelle, for respondent.

OPINION

START, C.J.

The complaint herein alleged, with other matters, in effect, that the defendants issued fire insurance policies to the assignor of the plaintiff, covering certain personal property which was described therein. After the sale of the property to the plaintiff, the policies were duly assigned to him, with the consent of the defendants. While the policies were in force, and on April 9, 1903, a fire occurred, whereby the property so insured was damaged in the sum of $1,500. The parties hereto thereafter agreed that the amount of such loss should be determined by arbitration. Three arbitrators were appointed for this purpose, and on May 11, 1903, two of them returned a purported award, wherein it was found that the damage to the property insured, caused by the fire, was the sum of $400. The plaintiff has at all times refused to abide by the award, and shortly after it was rendered he rejected it, and demanded a resubmission of the matter to arbitration according to the terms of the policies. The complaint also alleged that on or about January 16, 1903, J. R. Wheeler, plaintiff's assignor, duly sold, assigned, and transferred, for value, to him, the property so insured, and on that day duly assigned, by and with the consent in writing of the respective defendant companies, the several policies, and that from and after the last-mentioned date, up to the time of the fire, the plaintiff was the owner of the property, and the holder of the several insurance policies herein described. And further

That the purported award made and rendered, hereinbefore alleged was illegal and void, in this, to wit: that plaintiff duly demanded of said arbitrators the privilege of appearing before them, and of producing evidence material and pertinent to the subject-matter of the submission, viz., the amount of plaintiff's loss and damage, but that said arbitrators refused said privilege, and, at all times pending the determination of the matter submitted to them, declined to receive or hear any evidence from plaintiff, or the witnesses by him produced; that plaintiff duly protested against the action of said arbitrators last aforesaid, and duly appeared before said board of arbitrators at the first session or meeting thereof, and produced his witnesses, and demanded that their testimony be heard, but that said aribitrators then and there, and at all times thereafter, refused to receive or hear such testimony, or any testimony in plaintiff's behalf, and, notwithstanding plaintiff's said protest, said board proceeded to consider said matter, and to return the purported award aforesaid. Plaintiff further alleges that the witnesses produced by him as aforesaid for the purpose of giving evidence before said board of arbitrators were familiar...