Stack v. Hanover Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 March 1976 |
| Citation | 329 So.2d 561,57 Ala.App. 504 |
| Parties | John C. STACK and Peggy Stack v. The HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation. Civ. 703. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Cassady & Fuller, and M. Dale Marsh, Enterprise, for appellants.
Dunn, Porterfield, Scholl & Clark, and Larry W. Harper, Birmingham, for appellee.
Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment for defendant after suit upon a home owners insurance policy.
The home of plaintiffs in Enterprise was entered by a large female deer. The deer gained entry by crashing through sliding glass doors in the den. It exited by crashing through a bedroom window. The aftermath was extensive damage to door, window, furniture, carpet and drapes.
Plaintiffs claimed loss to the insured property under the vandalism provision of their policy with defendant which read as follows:
The court, upon motion by defendant, directed a verdict in favor of defendant. Motion for new trial was overruled.
The ruling of the trial court on each motion is charged as error. We affirm.
Though citing no case in which destruction of insured property by the independent act of an animal has been considered in relation to vandalism as defined in an insurance policy, counsel for plaintiffs has presented some unique and interesting arguments to the court. However, we cannot accept counsel's contentions in view of the plain and unambiguous words of the policy.
It was pointed out in the case of Great American Ins. Co. v. Dedmon, 260 Ala. 330, 70 So.2d 421, that the word vandalism is derived from the Vandals, a Germanic people who in the 4th and 5th centuries overran much of Europe and Africa, willfully and purposely destroying many objects of art and literature. Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines vandalism as the 'willful or malicious destruction or defacement of things of beauty or of public or private property.'
There is no question but that the popular meaning of vandalism is the intentional and malicious destruction of property. Such act requires a human mind capable of forming the requisite intent of committing a wrongful act, resulting in senseless destruction or damage to property either public or private. Unkelsbee v. Homestead Fire Ins. Co. of Baltimore, 41 A.2d 168 (D.C.Mun.App.); Great American Ins. Co. v. Dedmon, supra.
An animal, such as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Capital Flip, LLC v. Am. Modern Select Ins. Co.
...encompass animal behavior and held that, as a matter of law, they can only apply to human conduct. In Stack v. Hanover Insurance Co. , 57 Ala. App. 504, 329 So.2d 561 (Ala. Civ. App. 1976), the Alabama court rejected the argument that damage caused when a deer crashed through a glass door a......
-
Montgomery v. United Services Auto. Ass'n
...(1982)). As such, the court concluded that vandalism "must be perpetrated by a human actor." Id. Similarly, in Stack v. Hanover Insurance Co., 329 So.2d 561 (Ala.Civ.App.1976), a deer damaged a home when it crashed through a bedroom window. The term vandalism in the homeowner's policy was d......
-
Ditloff v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.
...have been properly denied, because animals such as cattle cannot act with the necessary malicious intent. Stack v. Hanover Insurance Company, 57 Ala.App. 504, 329 So.2d 561 (1976). If Mark or George had left the gate open the night before, that act would have been done accidentally, not wil......
-
Roselli v. Royal Ins. Co. of America
...precedent to the effect that vandalism and/or malicious mischief must be perpetrated by a human actor (see Stack v. Hanover Insurance Co., 57 Ala.App. 504, 329 So.2d 561, 562; Imperial Casualty and Indemnity Co. of Omaha v. Terry, 451 S.W.2d 303, 305 [Court of Civil Appeals of Texas] and Di......