Sioux City Inv. Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 15 February 1921 |
| Docket Number | 33626. |
| Parties | SIOUX CITY INVESTMENT COMPANY, Appellant, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Woodbury District Court.--GEORGE JEPSON, Judge.
ACTION in equity to reform a fire insurance policy. Plaintiff's petition was dismissed by the court, and it appeals.
Affirmed.
Edward E. Baron, for appellant.
Milchrist Scott & Pitkin, for appellee.
The uncontroverted facts, as disclosed by the record in this case, are that, on June 3, 1915, plaintiff was the owner of a three-room frame dwelling house, located on the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 35, Township 90, Range 48, Plymouth County Iowa; that, on said date, a renewal policy, insuring said building against loss in the sum of $ 500, was issued by defendant at its Chicago office, forwarded to C. J. Woolridge, its duly authorized agent at Sioux City, Iowa, and later delivered to plaintiff by one W. L. Prusiner, who was engaged in the insurance business in Sioux City, under the name of the Prusiner Insurance Agency, but who, unless by operation of law, was not the agent of defendant; that, prior to June 3, 1915, and after the issuance of the policy for which the policy in question was issued in renewal, plaintiff made the three-room dwelling house into an eight-room dwelling, thereby increasing its value from $ 800 to more than $ 2,000. The building, on May 2, 1917, was totally destroyed by fire, and in due time proper notice and proofs of loss were furnished to defendant. Herman Galinsky, secretary and treasurer, appears to have transacted all of the business for plaintiff. When Galinsky examined the policy after the fire, he discovered, as he claims for the first time, that the copy of the application attached thereto contained the following provisions:
He also discovered that the policy contained the following:
Plaintiff in its petition, alleged that the foregoing provisions of the policy were inserted therein by mutual mistake; that a representation set out in the application that the house was valued at $ 800 was inserted therein by mistake of the defendant's agent, who was familiar with and knew all the facts concerning said building, and who also knew that there was prior and additional insurance thereon to the amount of $ 1,600. Plaintiff prays that the provision of the policy prohibiting additional insurance, and the statement in the application of the alleged value of the building, be stricken therefrom; that the policy be reformed so as to express the true intention and purpose of the parties, and for judgment in the sum of $ 500 and costs. The defendant answered, admitting the receipt of $ 18.75 premium, the issuance of the policy, and setting up the provisions of the policy against other insurance, and denied the allegations of plaintiff's petition generally. Aside from the mere mention of waiver, the case appears to have been tried in the court below upon the sole issue of reforming the policy, and this is the only proposition urged by counsel for appellant upon this appeal. Galinsky testified that, about the time the prior policy expired, W. L. Prusiner came to his place of business, and inquired if plaintiff desired it renewed, and that he replied, "Yes." He further testified that he did not sign an application for said insurance. Upon cross-examination, he testified further that he had no recollection of having done so. As appears from the foregoing statement of the uncontroverted facts, if Prusiner was the agent of the defendant to solicit...
To continue reading
Request your trial