Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Oliphant

• Decision Date: 09 June 1931
• Docket Number: 20043.
• Citation: 300 P. 711,150 Okla. 1,1931 OK 327
• Parties: SPRINGFIELD FIRE & MARINE INS. CO. et al. v. OLIPHANT.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

300 P. 711

150 Okla. 1, 1931 OK 327

SPRINGFIELD FIRE & MARINE INS. CO. et al. v. OLIPHANT.

No. 20043.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

June 9, 1931

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1931.

Syllabus by the Court.

Fire policy provision requiring proofs of loss within definite time held waived by insurer's denying liability within such time upon other grounds.

A provision in an insurance policy, which required proof of loss to be furnished the company within a certain definite time, is waived by the company denying liability within said time upon other grounds than failure to furnish proof of loss.

Insurer under fire policy, exempting it from liability for loss occurring by explosion, held liable for damage by explosion, where explosion was caused by preceding hostile fire.

In an action on a fire insurance policy which exempted insurer from liability where loss occurred by explosion, unless fire ensues, and in such event for the fire damage only, the insurer is liable for the damage caused by explosion as well as damage by fire, where the explosion was caused by a preceding hostile fire.

Supreme Court will not reverse for insufficiency of evidence, where there is evidence reasonably tending to support judgment.

In a law action tried to the court, this court on appeal will not reverse the judgment because of insufficiency of the evidence, where there is any evidence reasonably tending to support the judgment.

Appeal from District Court, Hughes County; Geo. C. Crump, Judge.

Action by A. Oliphant against the Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Rittenhouse Lee, Webster & Rittenhouse, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.

Anglin & Stevenson and Forrest M. Darrough, all of Holdenville, for defendant in error.

HEFNER J.

A Oliphant, as plaintiff, brought three separate actions in the district court of Hughes county against Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Home Insurance Company, and Sun Insurance Office, to recover on fire insurance policies. The policies covered a small packing plant owned by plaintiff which he alleged was destroyed by fire.

The companies defended on the ground that the damage to the property was caused by an explosion, and that plaintiff failed to furnish proof of loss. The causes were consolidated and tried to the court, and resulted in a judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Defendants appeal, and assign as error that the judgment is contrary to law and not sustained by the evidence. Under this assignment, defendants first contend that plaintiff cannot recover because he failed to furnish proof of loss. The evidence is undisputed that no proof of loss was furnished. It is, however, shown that after the property was destroyed plaintiff notified the local agent of defendants of the loss; that an adjustor representing defendants appeared, viewed the property, and denied liability on the ground that the damage was due to an explosion, and not to fire. The furnishing of formal proof of loss was, by reason thereof, waived by defendants. State Mutual Ins. Co. v. Green, 62 Okl. 214, 166 P. 105, L. R. A. 1917F, 663; Atlas Assurance Company v. Leonard, 108 Okl. 150, 234 P. 771.

Defendants further contend that the judgment cannot be sustained for the reason that the evidence establishes that the damage to plaintiff's property was caused by an explosion and not by fire. That under the terms of their policies they cannot be held liable for damages to plaintiff's property caused by an explosion. The policies provide that the companies shall not be held liable for loss caused by explosion of any kind, unless fire ensues. It is admitted by plaintiff that there was an explosion, and that there was little if any damage caused directly by fire, but it is his contention that the explosion was caused by fire, and that the fire which caused the explosion was a hostile fire. If plaintiff's contention is correct, he is entitled to recover. In 14 R. C L. 1218, the following rule is announced: "Fire policies usually contain a provision exempting the insurer from liability for a loss by explosion. An exception of this character applies to fire damage following, but caused by, an explosion, according to the better view, though the contrary has sometimes been held. Of course, where the exemption in case of...