Reliance Ins. Co. v. Bowen
Decision Date | 23 November 1932 |
Docket Number | No. 3916.,3916. |
Citation | 54 S.W.2d 597 |
Parties | RELIANCE INS. CO. v. BOWEN. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Thompson, Knight, Baker & Harris, of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.
Cocke & Cocke, of Wellington, for defendant in error.
This suit was instituted in the county court of Collingsworth county by the defendant in error, Bob Bowen, hereinafter called appellee, against the plaintiff in error, Reliance Insurance Company, hereinafter called appellant, to recover the sum of $500 on a fire insurance policy issued by appellant to appellee, insuring certain household goods, wearing apparel, and furniture alleged to have been damaged and destroyed by fire.
The appellant answered by general demurrer and general denial, and pleaded that its policy contained a provision to the effect that, in the event of a disagreement as to the amount of the loss, the claim should be submitted to appraisers on the demand of either party; that a disagreement arose, an appraisal was demanded, an appraisal agreement was entered into, appraisers were appointed, and an award was made fixing the amount of loss and damage at $163.25; that under the provisions of the policy the award so made was binding; and that appellant had tendered appellee said sum and made tender thereof into court.
By supplemental petition, the appellee admitted the disagreement as to the amount of the loss, entering into an appraisal agreement and the selection of appraisers. He pleaded, however, that the award was not binding, first, because the appraisers had not found sound values; second, because the appraisers had not furnished him with any written award; and, third, that they had heard no evidence as to the value of the property.
In response to special issues submitted by the court, the jury found that the furniture and property covered by the policy was damaged by fire and the amount of the damage thereto was the sum of $400. On these findings judgment was rendered that the appellee have and recover from the appellant the sum of $400 with his costs and interest, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
The appellant presents as error the action of the trial court in holding that the award of the appraisers was not binding and in excluding it from the consideration of the jury on appellee's objection thereto.
The policy provided:
Appraisers were appointed in compliance with this provision and made the following award:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Girard v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 2645
...Southern Home Ins. Co., 142 S.C. 348, 140 S.E. 696; Mason v. Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia, 23 S.D. 431, 122 N.W. 423; Reliance Ins. Co. v. Bowen, Tex.Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 597; National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Ozburn, 51 Ga.App. 299, 180 S.E . 238; and Blaetz v. National Fire Ins. Co., Mo.App., ......
-
Fisch v. Transcontinental Ins. Co., 13912
...agreement is not binding on the parties. North River Ins. Co. v. Adams, Tex.Civ.App., 300 S.W. 185, writ ref.; Reliance Ins. Co. v. Bowen, Tex.Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 597. It has also been held that an award which is not made substantially in compliance with the requirements of the policy will ......
-
Branch v. Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. of Springfield, Mass.
... ... Southern Home Ins ... Co., 142 S.C. 348, 140 S.E. 696; Mason v. Fire Ass'n of ... Philadelphia, 23 S.D. 431, 122 N.W. 423; Reliance Ins. Co. v ... Bowen, Tex.Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 597; National Union Fire Ins ... Co. v. Ozburn, 51 Ga.App., 299, 180 S.E. 238; and Blaetz v ... ...