Ricks v. National Fire Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 November 1923
• Docket Number: No. 18037.,18037.
• Citation: 254 S.W. 414
• Parties: RICKS v. NATIONAL FIRE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

254 S.W. 414

RICKS v. NATIONAL FIRE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN.

No. 18037.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

November 6, 1923.

Rehearing Denied November 23, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Ernest Gantt, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Eugene Ricks against the National Fire Insurance. Company of Hartford, Connecticut. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Leahy, Saunders & Walther, of St. Louis, for appellant.

E. P. Rosenberger, of Montgomery, and John L. Burns, of Troy, for respondent.

ALLEN, P. J.

This is an action upon a policy of fire insurance issued by the defendant insurance company to the plaintiff on November 16, 1920, insuring plaintiff's automobile against loss or damage by fire to the amount of $250 for a period of one year. On April 3, 1921, the automobile was burned, resulting in the loss for which plaintiff sues. The trial, before the court and a jury, resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for $250, together with $40 as damages and an attorney's fee of $150 as for defendant's vexatious refusal to pay the loss. Thereafter plaintiff remitted $15 of the damages allowed as for defendant's vexatious refusal to pay, and judgment was entered for plaintiff in the sum of $425, from which the defendant prosecutes this appeal.

The evidence for plaintiff shows that the automobile, a "Chevrolet," was burned on a country road about one and one-halt miles from Troy, Mo., the place of plaintiff's residence. It appears that one Hasselfeld., who was contemplating making a trade with plaintiff for the automobile, was driving it at the time, accompanied by his brother-in-law, one Dunard, the only other occupant thereof, and that after discovering the fire and unsuccessfully attempting to extinguish it they abandoned the automobile and returned to Troy. Later that evening plaintiff and Hasselfeld, it is said, returned to the scene of the fire and examined what remained of the automobile. Testifying in regard thereto, plaintiff said:

"It looked like a pile of tin and some scraps of iron sticking up in it."

When asked what was burned about the automobile, he said:

"Well, everything about a car that would burn was burned, the upholstering was all gone, and the top and all the woodwork about it, and the body was all twisted in; showed it had been very excessive heat."

Later he said:

"Well—the condition, as I stated, it was just a pile of tin and scrap iron is about all there was remained of it."

Hasselfeld, when asked as to the condition of the automobile after the fire, said:

"Well, we found it burned up. * * * It was burned up just as bad as any car I ever seen. I don't know just how it was burned, but there was everything burned that could burn. * * * The two front wheels wasn't burned, but the rest of them—one wheel was burned clear off, and the other one was burned pretty bad, and both front wheels was burned."

And he said that the tires were all burned so that they could not be used; and that the top and body of the car were "all burned" and "nothing but tin left."

One witness for plaintiff, when asked on cross-examination if there was any market for "burned-up automobiles," said:

"I think there is three or four garages there in Troy that buy up those cars. * * * I have known of one or two cases where they were bought; yes, sir."

The testimony for plaintiff is that the reasonable value of the automobile at the time of the fire was $250 or $275.

There is evidence in the record touching a spare tire—a used tire—which was on the automobile prior to the fire and which, it is said, was removed therefrom and saved. However, the evidence is that there was no spare tire on the automobile when it was insured.

The evidence is that on April 5, 1921, plaintiff notified one Collard, an agent of defendant at Troy, of his loss, and that plaintiff heard nothing from the defendant until about ten days or two weeks later, when...